Abstract
Early identification of gifted children, including those twice-exceptional, allows schools and parents to support these children’s needs, but little is known about this early identification process and the role parents and teachers play. Parents of gifted children completed a survey which looked at what age their child was tested and identified, whether or not the parent suspected that the child was gifted, who referred the child for testing, and whether or not their child was twice-exceptional. Schools tested, identified, and started services for gifted children in the early elementary grades, usually between 5 and 6 years of age. Most parents identified giftedness in their children by age 2. Parents were also the most frequent person to refer their child for testing, although teachers also placed a strong role. Twice-exceptional children did not differ significantly from gifted children on any of these measures. Implication for further study are included.
Literature Review
Gifted children may appear more advanced when compared to peers in a variety of ways (Bildiren, 2018; NAGC, 2019), such as in language development (Bildiren, 2018; NAGC, 2019) mathematical (Bildiren, 2018) or numeracy skills (Adedoyin & Chisiyanwa, 2018), inquiry and curiosity (Kettler et al., 2017), or even entrepreneurship (Shavinina, 2008). Children can be gifted globally, or they may exhibit high abilities in one or more areas that occur alongside average abilities (Kettler et al., 2017) or another exceptionality (NAGC, 2019). Gifted characteristics can also be observed in very young children. Babies who are gifted manifest differences from their same age peers in early language development and walking among other characteristics between the ages 0 and 2 according to their parents (Bildiren, 2018). Perception ranked the highest difference for 2- to 4-year-olds in Bildiren’s (2018) study of 112 children ages 0 to 6 and second for children birth to 2. Early reading followed by mathematical reasoning were by far the main difference between 4- to 6-year-old gifted children and their typical age peers. “Colombo et al. (2009) found that by 48 months, measures of high cognitive ability were stable and predictive of subsequent high achievement” (as cited in Kettler et al., 2017, p. 118).
Parents play an important role in their child’s identification and are often the most important advocate a child has (Besnoy et al., 2015). They have firsthand knowledge of their very young children from observing them in unstructured, free play as well as when playing with an adult. Consequently, they can provide useful anecdotal information indicating potential giftedness that is quite accurate (Koopmans-Dayton & Feldhusen, 1987; Wolfe & Southern, 1989). This parental role may be even more critical for a young child who is twice-exceptional. Using grounded theory Speirs Neumeister et al. (2013) investigated the role of the primary caregiver of the twice-exceptional child to gain an understanding of their role in the child’s success. Their results indicated that these mothers were the primary caregivers most likely to identify their child’s giftedness as early as infancy and assume the responsibility for supplementing the child’s needs, particularly in the wake of the school failing to meet those needs. According to their study, mothers also took on the role of supporting their child’s disabilities by implementing alternative strategies to meet that specific need; they also were found to be the first people to identify their child’s disabilities.
The early identification of a gifted child’s interests, talents, and abilities also plays a role in determining what direction their education will take (NAGC, 2019; Wright & Ford, 2017) and has the power to prevent detachment from learning when the child’s early experiences in schools are unresponsive to their needs (Wright & Ford, 2017). Moon and Brighton (2008) counsel that the primary school teacher’s beliefs play a vital role in both the identification of a child’s giftedness and the development of the child’s talents, and children who are not recognized early are likely to hide their advanced abilities when in educational settings so they can fit in socially with their peers. Teachers, however, may have limited knowledge of how to identify gifted children and, with the challenges of instructing large groups, they often have little time to reflect on any perceived differences among students (Coleman & Gallagher, 2015; National Education Association [NEA], 2006). Furthermore, the range of cognitive, social-emotional, communicative, and physical development teachers see in their students today make their job even more challenging (Coleman et al., 2012; NEA, 2006).
Recognizing twice-exceptional children can be challenging to the untrained eye. The teacher’s ability to recognize twice-exceptional students requires an understanding of the unique relationship that plays between the two areas of exceptionality and sufficient knowledge and capability to use assessment and identification procedures that highlight both giftedness and the exceptionality (NAGC, 2006). Unfortunately, teachers may not have sufficient knowledge to reach this level of understanding, and their difficulty in identifying these children may be further compounded by the lack of awareness that children can actually be twice-exceptional (NEA, 2006; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2013).
For twice-exceptional children, the identification process can become complicated due to the interaction between the exceptionality and giftedness. Gifted strengths often have the effect of masking the disability (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disability, Asperger Syndrome) frequently having the effect of creating the appearance of “average” abilities (Morrison & Rizza, 2007).
The masking effect may also play a role in how twice-exceptional individuals are served in the school setting as their exceptionality may overshadow, or “mask” their giftedness, not only to teachers but to their parents as well (Maddocks, 2018). Rubenstein et al. (2015) cite the doctoral work conducted by Huber (2007) which found that, of the 10 students identified as twice-exceptional (identified as both gifted and with autism spectrum disorder), nine received special education services in their school setting; while conversely only four of those identified received gifted education services. This suggests that special education services may be more accessible or a higher priority than gifted education services, which lessens the opportunities for developing those students’ high abilities.
Early education experiences both at home (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2019) and in preschool (Yoshikawa et al., 2013) positively impact children’s academic learning and social-emotional learning in ways that have long-term benefits throughout school and adulthood. Because young gifted children have the capability to perform at higher levels than their peers, they require modifications and supports to their educational experience if they are to reach their potential (NAGC, 2019). Young gifted learners need high-quality early education to prevent boredom from unstimulating school experiences (Wright & Ford, 2017).
In addition, even though there is increasing recognition of twice-exceptionality, these students are at a high risk of school underachievement and related social-emotional difficulties because of the persistent challenge of recognizing a mix of unusual strengths and weaknesses in the same individual (Dare & Nowicki, 2015). Coleman and Gallagher (2015) and Wang and Neihart (2015) have suggested a team approach for educating twice-exceptional students, including the community and home as well as the school. Support from parents, teachers, and peers has been found to positively impact gifted students even without legally mandated protections in place (Kautz, 2018). The advocacy of parents and the work of informed teachers are both crucial for obtaining the educational services gifted children need to grow and develop (Ford, 2014). Ultimately, parents must continuously hone their advocacy skills to support their twice-exceptional children and this is likely to be an ongoing dynamic as parents work with schools (Rubenstein et al., 2015).
Given the nature of the parent–teacher partnership in the success of gifted children as well as the importance of the early identification process for gifted children, including those twice-exceptional, the purpose of this study was to survey parents of gifted children to determine:
At what age are children generally tested and identified as gifted? Does having an identified exceptionality affect this identification process?
At what age do children generally begin services for giftedness and how soon after identification do children began receiving them? Is this the same for gifted children who are also twice-exceptional?
How aware are parents of their child’s giftedness and is this awareness affected if their child also has an exceptionality?
What is the parent’s level of involvement in getting services and supports for their children? Is there a difference in the level of involvement for parents of twice-exceptional children vs. those identified as gifted-only?
Method
To address the research questions, the researchers developed a 22-question survey using Qualtrics Software, which was grouped into two parts, to make it conceptually easier for parents to fill out. The first part consisted of 12 questions which focused on testing and identification, and asked: (a) at what age a child was tested and identified, (b) whether or not the parent suspected that the child was gifted, (c) whether other family members were suspected to be gifted, and (d) what descriptions parents could give on their child’s unique talents and strengths. The second part of the survey focused on service satisfaction and quality. It consisted of 10 questions which asked: (a) at what age a child first received services, (b) the types of services the child received, (c) parental satisfaction with these services, (d) the extent to which the child appeared to be performing in relationship to their ability, and (e) whether or not the child had connections with other gifted children. Parents were also asked to identify whether or not their gifted child had an exceptionality, which allowed a comparison between children who were gifted-only and those who were twice-exceptional. Selections primarily from the first part of the survey are summarized in this article on testing and identification. The remaining data will be summarized in future manuscripts.
To develop the survey, the researchers used their study of the literature and personal experience working with families of gifted children to create the survey. The researchers then presented the survey to three families with gifted children—two who had twice-exceptional children and one whose child was gifted-only. The families provided feedback on the content validity and the meaningfulness of the questions asked. The researchers incorporated the feedback into the survey and then had a sample of families, researchers, and technicians (two representing each category) test the survey to see if the survey performed as expected and tracked parents properly through the survey. Once final adjustments were made to the survey, the survey was ready to go live.
To locate parents of gifted children, the survey was introduced first at a state level association for gifted conference where the researchers were in attendance and was subsequently advertised in the state association’s newsletter and Facebook page with a link to take the survey. Sufficient interest was generated by people seeing the link, that the link was then posted on Hoagies’ Gifted page and related Facebook page, the International Gifted Facebook page, and LinkedIn. The snowball research technique drew in sufficient numbers of respondents for data analysis. The survey remained open for 9 months, and was then closed, once it became obvious that no additional respondents were attempting the survey.
A total of 249 respondents attempted the survey. Two declined to participate and exited the survey. Of the 247 who chose to participate, a total of 177, or 71%, finished the survey. The 177 respondents represented 38 of the 50 states. The percentage of respondents ranging from highest to lowest were from California (10.7%); Nebraska (8.56%); Texas (6.42%); Ohio, Florida, and Colorado (each at 5.88%); Pennsylvania (5.35%), Virginia and Illinois (each at 4.81%); Washington (3.74%); Georgia and New Jersey (3.21%); Missouri and New York (each at 2.67%); Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota (each at 2.14%); Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin (each at 1.60%); Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oregon (each at 1.07%), and Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (each at .53%). The data from Qualtrics were then downloaded into Excel and then transferred to SPSS for analysis.
Results
Of the 177 respondents who completed the survey, 159 (89.83%) of them said that their children had been tested for giftedness while 17 (9.60%) said that their child had not yet been tested. Most of the respondents’ children who were tested were identified by the schools (126/159 or 79.24%), with anecdotal comments indicating some were tested and identified by private agencies or similar sources. Ninety-one of the 126 respondents (72.22%) indicated that they received services in a school setting. Others said that their child was served by private agencies, magnet or charter schools with advanced programs, or was home schooled. Of the 159 respondents who had their children tested for giftedness, 102 (64.15%) said that their child did not have an exceptionality while 41 (25.79%) said that their children also had an exceptionality. The remaining 10% either did not answer the question or said that they did not know. Of the 102 gifted-only children tested, 83 (81.37%) were identified by the schools as gifted and 64 (62.75%) said that their child received services for gifted. Of the 41 twice-exceptional children, 31 (75.61%) were identified by the schools as being gifted, and 20 (48.78%) said they received services for gifted.
Respondents selected the age their child was tested, identified, and started receiving services. The majority (143 or 89.94%) of the gifted children tested were first assessed when they were between the ages of 4 and 8 and, as shown in Figure 1, this pattern was the same, whether or not they were gifted-only (92 or 90.2%) or twice-exceptional (37 or 90.24%).
Percent of gifted children first tested at each age.
Schools identified the majority of all gifted children (100 or 79.37%) between the ages of 5 and 8 and as shown in Figure 2, gifted-only children (64 or 77.11%) or twice-exceptional children (26 or 83.87%) were identified during the same age span.
Percent of gifted children first identified at each age.
Schools also began serving most of the gifted (75 or 82.42%) during those 5 to 8 year span and in Figure 3, gifted-only children (50 or 78.13%) or twice-exceptional children (20 or 100%) were first served at about the same time.
Percent of gifted children first served at each age.
Respondents were also asked to state whether or not they suspected their child was gifted and if so, the age of their child when they first suspected this. Of the 167 parents who suspected their child was gifted, 146 (87.43%) suspected giftedness before the age of 5 when children start school and the majority (111 or 66.47%) suspected their child was gifted by the time their child was two. As indicated in Figure 4, this pattern is mirrored for both gifted-only children and those twice-exceptional. Most parents of gifted-only children (95 or 85.59%) suspected giftedness before formal schooling at age 5, with 71 (63.97%) of parents suspecting giftedness by the time their child was two. For parents of twice-exceptional children, 35 or 89.74% suspected giftedness by school age and 28 (71.79%) of parents suspected giftedness in their child by age 2.
Percent at each age when parents first suspected giftedness.
Age two seemed to clearly be a target year for parents to differentiate their child’s development and identify signs of giftedness. Parents of gifted children, whether their child had an exceptionality or not, suspected their child was gifted by the mean age of 2.54. Parents of gifted-only children suspected giftedness at the child’s mean age of, at 2.64, and those with twice-exceptional children, at 2.33. It is notable that a high percentage of parents, a quarter of those with gifted-only children and a third of those with twice-exceptional children also suspected giftedness by the time their child was one.
Regarding the average age children were identified and served, all gifted children were tested at the mean age of 6.18 years, identified at 6.60 years, and first served by 6.91. More 5- and 6-year-old children were tested than the other age groups and 5-year-olds were the largest group to be identified, but the number and percentage of children actually beginning services from the schools is fairly evenly distributed at 5, 6, 7, and 8. Figure 5 summarizes the mean (average) ages gifted-only and twice-exceptional children were tested, identified, and served as well as when parents first suspected giftedness. Gifted-only children were tested at the mean age of 6.16 years, identified at 6.75 years, and served by 6.98 years. More of those children were tested and identified at 5 than any other age, but the age they began services is spread similarly across the ages of 5 to 8.
Average age that schools first tested, identified, and served children and parents suspected giftedness.
Twice-exceptional children were tested at the mean age of 6.24, which is similar to gifted-only children, and were identified and served at similar ages. More 6-year-old twice-exceptional children were tested than any other group, but the testing is fairly evenly distributed from ages 4 to 8. More 5-year-old twice-exceptional children were identified, but the identification is also spread from 5 to 7 years of age. Even though more twice-exceptional children started service at ages 6 and 8, their beginning service dates are spread similarly from ages 5 to 8. In summary, twice-exceptional children were tested, identified, and served at similar ages as gifted children without an exceptionality, and parents of gifted children with or without an exceptionality suspected giftedness in their children when they were two, which is quite a bit earlier than the ages the schools tested, identified, and served the children.
To get a sense of the practical differences in mean ages for testing, identification, and service, it made sense to compare the time lag between each of these stages for gifted-only and twice-exceptional children in months; although approximate, it does provide a rough picture. It took approximately 6 months for gifted-only children to be tested and then identified and 2 months from the point of identification to actually get services. For twice-exceptional children, it took approximately 3 months to be tested and identified, but 7 months from the point of identification to actually get services. Although it is difficult to generalize with a small n, it is possible that the exceptionality factor plays in the timing of testing and identification because of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates. In summary, though, the actual difference between the testing and service for gifted-only children and twice-exceptional children is actually very similar—about 5 and a half months. This suggests that there is not a large time lag and that once the testing and identification service process has started, students do get services without a large delay.
Finally, respondents were asked to tell who referred their child for testing to verify giftedness. In Figure 6, the parent or other family members were the most frequently identified for all gifted children, including those with or without an exceptionality, followed by teachers. A reasonable percentage of parents said that no request was made and most often, this was because the school did mandatory testing for giftedness. Miscellaneous answers for the category of “other” included medical personnel, private school or preschool, social worker or similar person, or part of the assessment process when the parents applied at the school. Two of the respondents specifically mentioned that giftedness was identified when their child was tested for an exceptionality because IQ was included in the assessment.
Percent of who referred child for testing.
Discussion
In summary, the majority of gifted children in this survey appear to be tested early in the elementary grades, with kindergarten and first grade being optimal times. A good number of preschool children are also being tested, which means some parents and teachers are seeing signs of giftedness in young children even though few preschool children appear to actually be identified and served at this age. Since more kindergarten children were identified by the schools than any other age, it is possible that some of the children are being tested as preschoolers but identified and served by the schools when they become kindergarteners since only three states require services for gifted at the preschool level (National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2015). It is also possible that some of the preschool children who are being tested are being identified and served outside of the school system by private agencies or other specialized programs for gifted children. There does not appear to be a significant time lapse between when children are identified and served, so children do seem to get services reasonably soon after they are identified. However, not all of the children identified were receiving school-based services. About 28% appear to be receiving services elsewhere or may not be receiving services at all. Further research should explore the type and quality of services and the extent to which schools are meeting gifted children’s needs.
Twice-exceptional children in this study appear to be tested, identified, and served at similar ages as their gifted peers who do not have exceptionalities. Since some exceptionalities (e.g., learning disabilities) require intelligence testing, giftedness would be picked up at that point, and additional testing for giftedness could take place. Two parents specifically mention this as the case. If the child was going to receive services for giftedness, these could potentially start later than exceptionality-related services. Although a large percentage of children who were tested were identified, and a good percentage were served by the schools, a slightly lower percentage of twice-exceptional children were identified and served than their gifted-only counterparts. It is not possible to know if this is normal variation due to sample size for twice-exceptional students, or if there is some evidence of the masking affect for these students. More research is needed in this area.
The survey also explored parental knowledge of their child’s giftedness and their involvement in getting services and supports for their children. The majority of parents in this study suspected their child was gifted long before their children started school, with the average being about 2 years of age. This is about 3 to 4 years earlier than when most schools are assessing, identifying, and serving these children. This is a large gap during critical years of development and learning where these children are not being identified and served, and by waiting until children are older, there is concern that these children will began to underperform because they find these early education experiences boring (Wright & Ford, 2017) or to fit in with their peers once they enter school (Gross, 1999; Moon & Brighton, 2008), making it more difficult to identify and serve them in school settings.
There could also be a concern as to whether parents are good identifiers of gifted children’s characteristics and can see this in their children, or if all parents see their children as “bright.” In the survey, parents were asked about their child’s unique strengths and talents. Comments parents wrote in about their child’s unique strengths and talents are consistent with criteria for giftedness. Sample comments are below: My child was speaking two syllable words before his first birthday. He has an interest in letters. He knows all the sounds and reads sight words at age two. He has an excellent memory and passion for learning. My child has early abilities beyond her chronological age—high math, science, verbal, vocabulary, and reading abilities. Gifted musician in piano and clarinet. High aptitude in engineering, modeling, aeronautics, quantum math. Pursuit of deep knowledge of subjects beyond her years. (e.g., mythology interest at age 7, she read Adult level Greek mythology books describing the various gods and goddesses. Then she went on to learn about Roman Mythology at the same College/Adult level with books we would purchase for her from Amazon or the local bookstore. She became a walking encyclopedia on the subject). He started reading at age 2 years and 3 months. At 12 months he had a vocabulary over 100 words. He’s currently four and reading at a third-grade reading level. Writing at a first-grade level, and performing math at a second-grade level. Overall advanced intellect with achievement tests placing him 2-7 years beyond his current grade level in all subjects. [Excels in] math/cello and began college with full load at 13 years old. She passed the test as Highly Gifted. She has a combination of many things, her curiosity and memory are incredible, also her vocabulary and speech.
Given the consistency of these parental descriptors of their children’s giftedness, it is reasonable to assume that parents in this survey had a reasonable understanding of giftedness and could apply these to their children appropriately
In looking at those who refer children for testing, it is not surprising that parents played a significant role in referring to, and advocating for, their children. Parents in this study were the largest group of individuals to refer for testing. Since the respondents were from parent groups of gifted children, it is likely that the percentage is biased because these parents are more likely to be educated about giftedness and to advocate for their children. However, their presence here suggests that parents who have sufficient knowledge and supports can and do support their children. Teachers also played a strong role in referrals, particularly for children who were gifted-only.
For twice-exceptional children, teachers had a smaller role and other people (e.g., family doctor, IDEA verification testing, etc.) contributed to the referrals. Given the team approach mandated by IDEA for children with exceptionalities, this makes sense to see the role shared. This also underscores the need for teachers to be informed on giftedness, including for twice-exceptional children, so that they can better aid in the referral process. It appears that mandatory testing or testing requirements at school entry seemed to be a positive contributor to the referral and identification process. Schools should continue to pursue mandatory testing options for children and ensure that these are done early enough to identify gifted children.
In addition to mandatory testing, schools should consider how to more effectively identify and serve very young gifted children and help to address the gap between when parents suspect their child is gifted and when their children actually get served by the schools. Testing any young child is difficult. In special education, this is addressed by allowing a verification of “developmental delay.” Perhaps an “advanced development” verification based on character descriptors and functional testing should be considered for gifted children who are not yet school age. This could be determined by observational data on functional developmental indicators such as the mismatch between a child’s level of performance and the typical learning activities of the center (Kettler et al., 2017).
Since special education’s approach to early identification and services seems to be effective for very young children with disabilities, perhaps more attention should be put into a similar system of early identification and services for very young gifted children, including those who are twice-exceptional. In addition, just as special education wraps a team around a child with an exceptionality, perhaps creating a more systematic team approach for children who are gifted would be useful. Team members would need appropriate professional development and giftedness would needs to be seen as a priority, rather than an optional service.
Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research
This study used a survey approach for parents of gifted children belonging to parent groups for giftedness. While this allowed the researchers to get a larger sample of parents than surveying a single state, the parents who responded to the survey are likely a subgroup who have the skills to advocate strongly for services and therefore, may not be representative of all parents who have gifted children. Furthermore, only 32 states have some form of legal mandate related to gifted and talented education and Local Education Agencies have considerable flexibility in how they identify and serve children (National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (2015); consequently, there may be states that do not have parent groups or other supports and those parents may not be represented in the survey. Parents who do not have access to these parent groups may not have sufficient knowledge about their child’s giftedness or know what to advocate for. Another limitation is that, other than disability, no demographic information such as socio-economic status, race, or ethnicity were collected from the parents; therefore, it is possible that parents of under-represented gifted children were not well represented in the survey.
The survey also was not able to effectively capture the subgroup of parents who were not sure if their child had an exceptionality. More studies of gifted children who have characteristics consistent with specific exceptionalities and children with exceptionalities who have characteristics of giftedness would need to be studied to determine if those children would be identified as being twice-exceptional and masking of the exceptionality or giftedness was in place. In addition, more studies of twice-exceptional children are needed to determine the interaction between the exceptionality and giftedness and how this impacts identification and services. In summary, parents are often the first to recognize gifted behaviors in the early years (National Association for Gifted Children, 2006), underscoring the needs to have educators and families work together to meet the needs of young gifted learners (Coleman et al., 2012). Future research should look into strategies to strengthening the educator-family bonds and support schools, teachers, and parents to better identify and serve young gifted children and improve the team process so all children can succeed.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Bios
Dawn L. Mollenkopf, PhD, is an associate professor in Teacher Education at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. She teaches both undergraduate and graduate level courses in Early Childhood Education/Special Education and directs the Early Childhood Inclusive Endorsement program. She received her PhD in Special Education Policy Integration with an emphasis in Early Childhood at the University of Kansas. Her research interests include early childhood teacher preparation and young gifted children.
Jude Matyo-Cepero, PhD, NBCT, is an associate professor at the University of Nebraska Kearney. She teaches both undergraduate and graduate level courses in Gifted Education, Autism and Exceptional Education Research. Dr. Cepero is the recipient of the Lewis Professorship for Gifted Education and is the Director of Gifted Education at the University of Nebraska Kearney. Her research interests include Advocacy, Gifted, Autism, Multi-exceptional education, and Teacher Preparation.
Joan D. Lewis, PhD, is professor emeritus of Teacher Education at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. She was state director of gifted education in Nebraska from 1998 to 2013. Her publications include two books, several book chapters and numerous journal articles and has presented widely. She is currently the science and technology curriculum chair for the University of Texas Osher Lifelong Learning Institute’s LAMP program. She earned her Ph.D. and M. Ed. from the University of Mississippi and B.A. from the University of Southern California.
Bailey A. Irwin, CS-SLP, is a graduate of University of Nebraska Kearney, in the area of Speech Language Pathology. She is a Speech Language Pathologist at Lexington Regional Health Center in NE. In her time at UNK, she has worked with Dr. Jude Cepero as a Graduate Assistant in Research. Her current research interests include twice exceptional learners, gifted education and language development.
Jennifer Joy, PhD, was an assistant professor in Counseling School Psychology at the time of submission. She received her PhD in School Psychology from the University of Northern Colorado and her research has been focused in early childhood social competence and school readiness. She spent nearly a decade as a school psychologist in Denver, specializing in behavioral consultation and intervention in preschool classrooms and has returned to Colorado to serve as a technical assistant and assessment support for Head Start.