Adversity and Pitfalls of Twice-Exceptional Urban Learners

Abstract

Current research provides unique insights into the experiences and context of twice-exceptional students in K-12 schools. However, within this literature, a critical gap exists concerning the voices of twice-exceptional African American students and their families. The current qualitative study examined the perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of eight African American artistically gifted students with disabilities and three parents in a large, urban school district in the Midwest. Three major themes emerged from qualitative interviews: (a) the significance of labels, (b) social and personal experiences of exceptionality, and (c) challenges and strategies in the school environment. To this end, findings indicate that students experience their special education identity much differently from their gifted identity.

Keywords

African American gifted education special education urban education twice-exceptional

Within the field of gifted education, students who are twice-exceptional have received increasing attention. It is estimated that there are more than 360,000 twice-exceptional students, meaning students with a disability who are also gifted and talented (National Education Association, 2006). This estimation is likely conservative based on the identification challenges for twice-exceptional children. First, students may be identified as gifted, but may be identified as having a disability later in their development. Second, twice-exceptional students may be identified as having a disability and receive special services but may not have their gifts recognized through gifted programming. Finally, twice-exceptional students, particularly those arising from the phenomena of masking, may not have either exceptionality recognized if they are meeting grade-level expectations, thus never seeming to possess characteristics related to giftedness or having a disability (Foley Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, & Stinson, 2011; Foley Nicpon & Assouline, 2015; Foley Nicpon, Doobay, & Assouline, 2010).

In addition, there can be challenges with the referral process. For instance, Rinn and Nelson (2009) provided 132 preservice teachers with a vignette of an unidentified student with both gifted and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) characteristics. When asked what might explain the student’s behavior, participants could easily identify ADHD behaviors more so than gifted behaviors. In fact, even when presented with the suggestion of giftedness and ADHD as the explanation of the student’s behavior, participants’ responses still centered on ADHD only. In both vignette presentations, only 15 of the participants (11%) identified the student in the vignette as being gifted with ADHD. Related studies with preservice school counselors (Hartnett, Nelson, & Rinn, 2003) and special and general educators (Bianco, 2005; Bianco & Leech, 2010) have similar findings in that each group was less likely to identify and refer students with disabilities and gifted characteristics to gifted education. Identification becomes highly problematic when schools rely heavily on teacher referrals to initiate the identification process. Generally speaking, educators are more apt to identify students for counseling or social skills training for their disability rather than to recommend students for gifted education (Bianco, 2005; Bianco & Leech, 2010; Hartnett et al., 2003; Rinn & Nelson, 2009). When educators do not consider modifying their identification process to be sensitive to students with special needs, these students are more likely be underserved and excluded.

Personal and Social Experiences

Twice-exceptional students also face a myriad of personal, social, and academic challenges, as they possess characteristics unique to their disability and giftedness (Foley Nicpon & Assouline, 2015). For example, Antshel and colleagues (2008) investigated the similarities and differences in behavior and functioning of 92 gifted students and 49 gifted students with ADHD. The researchers found that gifted students with ADHD had higher levels of anxiety, exhibited more disruptive behavior, and experienced greater impairments in social, academic, and family functioning (Antshel et al., 2008). As students navigate the school system, they may internalize negative feelings of low self-esteem, self-doubt, and frustration as well as externalize aggressive and other problematic behaviors that make it challenging to maintain social relationships with peers and family (Assouline, Foley Nicpon, & Doobay, 2009; Foley Nicpon & Assouline, 2015).

Academic Experiences

Academic success can also be greatly affected by the intersection of a student’s disability and gifted status. For example, Assouline, Foley Nicpon, and Whiteman (2010) administered a battery of test to 75 gifted students with learning difficulties or severe social impairments to assess academic talent and confirm or rule out disability. The authors identified 14 gifted students with learning disabilities in written expression, who exhibited strong verbal abilities, such as verbal comprehension, conceptualization, and reasoning (Assouline et al., 2010). Thus, these students had weaker nonverbal abilities in the areas of spatial abilities, decoding, auditory working memory, and processing speed (Assouline et al., 2010). They often struggle academically while exploring their gifts and coping with their disabilities (Foley Nicpon et al., 2011; Foley Nicpon & Assouline, 2015).

When these negative personal, social, and academic experiences remain unresolved, twice-exceptional students are vulnerable of academic underachievement or low achievement (Foley Nicpon et al., 2011). Generally speaking, twice-exceptional students experience challenges in reaching their gifted potential in the face of their own disability, which may lead to underachievement or low achievement(Foley Nicpon & Assouline, 2015; Willard-Holt, Weber, Morrison, & Horgan, 2014). Based on the unique characteristics that twice-exceptional students possess, they may also be more susceptible to being excluded or even removed from gifted programs (VanTassel-Baska, Feng, Swanson, Quek, & Chandler, 2009). Thus, twice-exceptional students often need additional support and interventions that offer more positive school experiences in school.

Twice-Exceptionality and Educators

The intersection of disability and giftedness frequentlycreates challenges for students as well as their school providers. Despite professional ethical codes and obligations (i.e., American School Counselor Association Code of Ethics, 2010; National Education Association Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, 2010; etc.), educators and school counselors are often puzzled about how to meet the needs of these students (Foley Nicpon et al., 2011; Leggett, Shea, & Wilson, 2010). For example, in a national study, Foley Nicpon, Assouline, and Colangelo (2013) found that educators possessed some knowledge and awareness of twice-exceptionality but that both this knowledge and awareness were discipline-specific. Frequently school psychologists and special educators are trained to understand special education guidelines and response to intervention, while gifted educators possess greater knowledge of gifted education policies. Moreover, although there was some awareness and familiarity with twice-exceptionality, the participants reported limited experience in working with twice-exceptional students (Foley Nicpon et al., 2013). To this end, the lack of experience and comprehensive understanding of twice-exceptionality may lead to potential errors in identification and educational placement of twice-exceptional students. In addition, twice-exceptional students may fail to learn to their potential, due to lack of equitable school supports (Willard-Holt et al., 2014).

African American Twice-Exceptional Students

Although the scientific and theoretical literature reflects an increased understanding of general experiences, challenges, and characteristics of many twice-exceptional students, the perspective of African American twice-exceptional students has a limited empirical base. There is a growing body of literature on African American students in gifted and special education. Much of this literature suggests that their educational experiences are challenging, as a result of the interplay of race within the context of schooling (J. Banks & Hughes, 2013; Ford & Moore, 2013; Ford & Whiting, 2011; Henfield, Moore, & Wood, 2008; Obiakor, Beachum, & Harris, 2010; Trotman Scott, Mayes, Griffith, Garrett, & Watkins, 2015). More specifically, African American students are underrepresented in gifted education (Ford, 2013; Ford & Moore, 2013; Ford & Whiting, 2011) and overrepresented in special education (Gardner & Mayes, 2013; Trotman Scott et al., 2015). This disparate representation may be due to educator bias and lack of understanding of culturally diverse students (Ford, 2013; Obiakor et al., 2010). Furthermore, being labeled, according to ability and/or disability, does not ensure that African American students have access to the resources or support necessary for their success. African American students in gifted and special education are often met with educators’ negative or low expectations (J. Banks, 2014, 2015; J. Banks & Hughes, 2013; Ford, Trotman Scott, Moore, & Amos, 2013; Gardner & Mayes, 2013) and find that their racial/cultural perspective is not represented in their courses or the school environment (J. Banks, 2008). When African American students in gifted or special education do not feel their identities or strengths are represented or valued in the school community, they may disengage from school, underachieve, or withdraw from school (J. Banks, 2008; Ford, 2010, 2013; Trotman Scott et al., 2015). The empirical and theoretical literature on African American students in gifted or special education may provide insight on the experiences of twice-exceptional African American students; however, empirical studies are needed to provide critical information about the meaning, context, and process by which African American students have formed their perceptions about disability, giftedness, and their experiences in school and the community.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine how twice-exceptional African American students in urban schools and their families make sense of intersecting social and educational identities (e.g., disability, giftedness, and race) by giving them the opportunity to tell their stories. According to the interpretivist approach, these individual experiences are socially constructed and frequently reflective of multiple realities in which students live (Glesne, 2011). Moreover, these realities often affect the perceptions and meanings that individuals make in their environment and shape their interactions with others (Glesne, 2011). Thus, interpretivism serves as the theoretical framework for this study.

Theoretical Framework

As qualitative studies are invariably interpretive in nature, the researchers’ interpretive lens is largely shaped by Ecological Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Ecological perspectives indicate a hierarchy of influences that are most proximate and influential on development. This theoretical viewpoint illustrates not only how the environment affects youth but also how youth, in turn, influences these environments. Therefore, Ecological Theory is utilized as a theoretical underpinning for this study. Bronfenbrenner (1979) asserts that the developing child is surrounded by layers of interactional relationships much like nested Russian dolls. Although the racism and marginalization experienced by African American students in schools and other learning contexts have been well documented (Borrero, Yeh, Cruz, & Suda, 2012; Henfield et al., 2008; Ogbu, 2003; Steele & Aronson, 1995), little attention has been given to the intersection of race and ability status in gifted education, in particular twice-exceptional African American students. As such, Ecological Theory offers a framework to understand how student interactions with different systems may lead to empowerment or marginalization. Parental engagement and collaboration have shown to be an asset for more positive student outcomes (McDonnall, Cavenaugh, & Giesen, 2012). Although African American families may value education, building positive relationships with individuals in the school system often proves to be a daunting task. Thus, African American parents often experience isolation and racism, and may lack the appropriate knowledge to actively participate (Ford, 2011). Ecological Theory allows for more expansive but focused understanding of complex layers of school, family, and community relationships as it relates to individual student development.

Significance of the Study

As previously stated, the twice-exceptional literature has seen greater attention, particularly in understanding general experiences and related challenges that students face. Furthermore, the twice-exceptional research has led to an even greater understanding of challenges surrounding identification and intervention programs (Foley Nicpon et al., 2011). Several studies have explored within-group differences in the twice-exceptionality population, including differentiation by disability and by gender. However, as of today, no study has explored the intersection of disability, giftedness, and race as it pertains to African American students in urban schools. As such, this study fills a critical gap in the literature.

Because of the paucity of research on this topical area, there is little information available that addresses contextual factors in which these African American twice-exceptional students form their perceptions and attitudes of educators. Despite African American students being in a unique position to be critically honest about their educational experiences, narratives about their realities are often generated by an outsider with little to no connection to the lived experiences of students told by students (Atwood & Lopez, 2014). As the voices of African American students are often absent, educators, such as teachers, administrators, and school counselors, are left with an incomplete picture of the educational perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of twice-exceptional African American students from urban school systems. If education professionals, such as school counselors and school psychologists, are expected to be leaders, advocates, and agents of change in the lives of all students (American School Counselor Association, 2012), then it is critical that they gain the necessary knowledge of all the students they serve. This study offers valuable information to prospective and current teachers, school counselors, and school psychologists who work with twice-exceptional African American students and their families. Furthermore, it offers insights on what types of supports and services twice-exceptional African American students and their families may need. As a part of a larger investigation, the research questions that guided this study are the following:

Research Question 1: How do students and parents experience disability in school?

Research Question 2: How do students and parents experience giftedness in school?

Method

Participants

The participants in the present study were eight twice-exceptional African American students (five females, three males) and three mothers of the twice-exceptional African American students from a large, urban district in the Midwestern region of the United States. Of the eight student participants, five (62.5%) were identified as having a specific learning disability, two (25%) were identified as having an emotional disorder, and one (12.5%) had a traumatic brain injury. In addition, all students were identified as being gifted in non-academic subject areas including instrumental music (two; 25%), vocal music (two; 25%), dance (three; 37.5%), and visual arts (one; 12.5%). For more details about the student and parent participants, see Table 1.

Table 1.

Student and Parent Demographics.

Parent-chosen pseudonym	Student-chosen pseudonym	Gender	Age	Grade	Special Ed.ID	Gifted Ed. ID	Avg. Grade % (0-100 Scale)	School size	Free/red meals
N/A	Olivia	F	15	9	SLD	Instr. Music	77-82	699	84.7%
Miss Sarah	Ashley	F	14	9	ED	Dance	77-82	607	87.5%
Miss Tammy	Marcus	M	16	10	TBI	Instr. Music	Less than 77	1,000	76.8%
N/A	Jasmyne	F	17	12	SLD	Dance	87-92	728	86.9%
N/A	Rosaline	F	16	10	ED	Vocal Music	Less than 77	728	86.9%
N/A	Christina	F	17	12	SLD	Vocal Music	83-86	554	88.3%
N/A	Lawrence	M	19	12	SLD	Visual Arts	83-86	681	81.3%
N/A	Erik	M	17	12	SLD	Dance	83-86	728	86.9%
Miss Helen	Paul	M	—	12	SLD	Dance	—	699	84.7%

Note. In the special education ID column, SLD, ED, and TBI are abbreviations for specific learning disability, emotional disturbance, and traumatic brain injury, respectively. School size indicates the number of students enrolled at the school. TBI = traumatic brain injury.

District

This district provides a continuum of services for students, including gifted and special education services. For example, giftedness in this district is defined as students who perform or show potential to perform at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with their peers with similar backgrounds (e.g., age, experience, environments). The Gifted and Talented Department offers services based on students’ individual interest, ability, creativity, and demonstrated achievement for students who have been identified as having superior cognitive ability, specific academic ability, creative thinking ability, or outstanding aesthetic production in visual art, music, theater, or dance. Educators first refer students who they believe might be gifted. Then, students complete state-approved standardized intelligence tests or achievement tests for superior cognitive or specific academic ability, respectively. For creative thinking and visual and performing arts, students are first screened by a state-approved ability test or visual and performing arts specialist, and then a behavioral checklist and portfolio or performance evaluation are used to identify students as gifted in creative thinking or visual and performing arts. Results are then mailed to parents, nominating teacher, and the school principal. Although in this particular district, students can be identified as gifted in academic areas (i.e., math, science, English) and non-academic areas (i.e., visual arts, dance, theater, etc.), gifted services are limited to only those students who are identified in academic areas.

In addition to gifted education services, the school district provides K-12 special education services, as mandated by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004), for those students identified under the following disabilities: autism, cognitive disability (i.e., mental retardation), deaf, blindness, developmental delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment/deafness, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairments, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, or visual impairment. A team of school staff and parents determine the eligibility for special education services based on assessments, observations, medical information, and developmental history of the child. Then, an individual education plan is developed based on the individual needs of the child. These special education services are then implemented for the student by “highly qualified” teachers, therapists, and paraprofessionals.

Procedures

After approval from the Institutional Review Board, the researchers worked with a representative in the district to identify twice-exceptional African American students enrolled in high school. The district provided the researchers with a list of all of the twice-exceptional African American high school students (119 students), which included their current school, grade level, gifted identification, and special education identification. The researchers then worked with numerous school principals and school counselors to invite students to a recruitment session at their respective schools, during the school day. Students who were interested in participating in the study were provided a folder containing the following items: (a) a letter introducing the researchers and explaining the purpose of the study, (b) informed consent documents requiring signatures by the parent/guardian and student to be interviewed, (c) demographic questionnaires, and (d) a flyer containing information on when the researchers would return to their respective school to collect the completed materials (i.e., demographic questionnaire and informed consent form) and to schedule the individual interview. A total of 20 students attended the recruitment sessions, and eight students received parental consent and assented to participate in the study. Three parents also consented to participate in the study as well. Individual face-to-face and phone interviews were scheduled when the researchers returned to the respective schools. Individual interviews lasted approximately 1 to 1.5 hours.

Data Collection

Demographic Questionnaires and School Profiles

The researchers administered demographic questionnaires designed to collect participant background information in areas related to the study (i.e., grade point average [GPA], community make-up, school information). The researchers also collected school profile information about each high school the students attended, which included information on class size, student population, school achievement data, and so on. The demographic data and school profiles provided context and enhanced the overall trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Individual Interviews

A general interviewing guide, which included semi-structured questions, was used by the researchers as the primary data collection method of the study (Patton, 2002). The general interviewing guide was created, based on the researchers’ experiences working with racially and culturally gifted students in urban schools and a review of the literature prior to the individual interviews. In addition, questions were subtracted or modified depending on the responses of the participants before, during, or after the interview. This process allowed for systematic and comprehensive interviewing, while offering flexibility to divert from the interviewing guide or ask follow-up questions related to participant responses (Patton, 2002). Students and parents participated in individual interviews lasting 1 to 1.5 hours. Each interview was recorded and transcribed under a pseudonym to protect the identity of the participants.

Research Team

The research team consisted of two African American researchers. Both have extensive experience in qualitative methodologies with particular focus on students of color in the preK-16 pipeline. Both researchers have experience working with African American students in gifted education and those who are in special education. Furthermore, both researchers have contributed to the scholarly and conceptual literature concerning urban education and African American students. It was also a shared assumption that twice-exceptional African American students have a unique experience based on the researchers’ background experiences and knowledge about the role race plays in both gifted and special education.

Data Analysis Process

The researchers used a grounded theory approach to data analysis. More specifically, constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was used to analyze the qualitative data and other data sources obtained for this study. Constant comparative analysis strategy typically involves collecting and analyzing data simultaneously (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). In this case, data were taken from one individual interview, statement, or theme and were compared with all other data that may be similar or different to develop conceptual categories that illustrate the relationships between the data (Glesne, 2011). This process continued throughout the investigation until all interview data had been compared with each other.

After the first interview was transcribed, the data analysis phase of the study began and continued with each additional interview being compared with its predecessor. Emergent themes were identified from raw data and indexed in a process called open coding (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). During this process, the researchers tentatively identified and named conceptual categories where observed phenomena were grouped. The lead author initially coded the data and created a tentative codebook containing 60 codes that was used during this process. The second author then applied the codebook to the data independent of the lead author. After initial coding, the research team discussed the results of the open coding process and created 13 preliminary categories that were descriptive and multidimensional. This analysis provided a new understanding of the observed phenomena.

To further refine preliminary categories, axial coding was used (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Axial coding allowed for the researchers to test the relationships of categories against data while continuing to identify indications of each category. Stated differently, axial coding was the process used to build and clarify categories by examining data and identifying the variations within and between the categories to explain the observed phenomena (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). During this process, the research team re-examined the raw data and collected additional data when gaps were discovered in the data. This process helped the researchers understand salience and discrepancies of categories across data from each participant. As a result of both open and axial coding, the researchers reported an account that “closely approximates the reality it represents” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 57).

Trustworthiness

As the current study was qualitative, the researchers were in a position of power as the interpreter of the data. However, as a part of this study, the researchers incorporated a myriad of methods to establish trustworthiness by balancing researcher interpretation and participant meaning (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researchers used data and methodological triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by recruiting participants from different communities with varying levels of achievement and interaction with educators. Finally, investigator triangulation was used to establish trustworthiness. The researchers used member checking to ensure that the researcher’s “interpretations honor the meaning as conceived by participants” (Nutt Williams & Morrow, 2009). The researchers provided a copy of the emergent themes to participants for their review. Participants’ feedback included minor changes to wording, particularly with pseudonyms. These changes were made as a result of member checking. Several scholars suggest enlisting the support of an external auditor, a skilled colleague who is not directly involved with the research study, who can provide critical feedback on the development of the study (Nutt Williams & Morrow, 2009). An external auditor who has extensive experience with qualitative research with children and adolescents in urban schools was included in the study and allowed the researchers to clarify thoughts, probe any researcher biases, and challenge presumptions or interpretations throughout the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results

In keeping with the purpose of qualitative research, rich, in-depth descriptions were presented to shine a light on the lived experiences of the participants (i.e., students, parents, and educators; Patton, 2002). Based on grounded theory analysis, three major themes emerged, which include (a) the significance of labels, (b) social and personal experience of exceptionality, and (c) challenges and strategies in the school environment. The researchers identified each theme as being salient to the experiences, perceptions, and attitudes of the student and parent participants.

The Significance of Labels

As a major component of the study, the researchers wanted to understand how the participants make meaning of and understand their special education and gifted education labels. Subcategories in this section include (a) initial reactions to special education identification, (b) hidden gifts, and (c) conflicting views of giftedness.

Initial reactions to special education identification

Although the overall experiences of special needs varied among participants, each student participant talked about the initial identification of their special needs as being isolating. For example, Jasmyne, a senior with a specific learning disability and giftedness in dance, mentioned that initially she felt positive about having a special need but later realized that she was different from her peers, when she said, “I kind of felt special because I got to leave class and when I started to learn remedial [materials], and realized I was farther behind than anybody else, I kind of felt stupid” (individual interview, May 24, 2013). Other participants used terms such as dumb, slow, and different to describe how they initially felt when they were identified with special needs.

In addition to feeling different from others, Christina, a high school senior with a specific learning disability and identified as gifted in vocal music, discussed feeling isolated by her educational label and placement in special education classes: “for a while I felt like segregated. I felt low and stupid . . . I would try to keep [it a secret] . . . I would try to stay in the back” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). Because of her feelings around being identified as having a specific learning disability and being in a separate class, Christina purposely skipped or was late to class so that others would not know she had special needs. Olivia, a ninth-grade student with a specific learning disability and identified as gifted in vocal music, shared that before being identified as having a disability, she was much more social, but has since then disengaged with her friends and teachers because she wants to be by herself.

Parent participants had different reactions to their child being identified for special education. Two parents were initially in denial, thinking that there was “nothing wrong” with their child, that it was not a disability issue but that they just needed to try harder. For example, Miss Sarah, the mother of a sophomore with an emotional disorder and identified as gifted in dance, shared her journey coming to terms with her child’s special needs. Similarly, Miss Helen also went through denial before coming to terms that her son, a senior with a specific learning disability and identified as gifted in dance, had special needs: “I thought basically, at first, it was like a behavioral problem . . . I think I was in denial. I came out of the denial and realized that he was having problems” (individual interview, May 23, 2013). Although Miss Helen and Miss Sarah faced the challenges understanding their child’s special needs through school, Miss Tammy’s experience was vastly different. Rather than denial, she immediately recognized a shift in his functioning, especially after she learned he had suffered from a Grade 3 concussion.

Although parents’ readiness to accept that their child had special needs varied, each parent participant found ways to learn more about the special needs that their child had. For example, Miss Helen looked to her mother for guidance and understanding. Her mother was frequently in communication with the school and participated in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings. Both Miss Sarah and Miss Tammy found themselves joining support groups and taking classes to learn more about their child’s special needs. For example, Miss Sarah found classes in the community that trained her and her daughter (Ashley), on her specific special needs. In addition to classes, Miss Tammy indicated that she connected with an educator at the district level who had meetings for parents with a child with a traumatic brain injury. To this end, Miss Tammy suggested that the meetings gave her perspective and also more information to assist her and her son’s plan for the future.

Hidden gifts

In this particular district, students are identified for gifted education in several different ways, depending on the particular area of giftedness. Students who are identified as gifted in academic areas (reading, math, science, social studies), creative thinking, or having superior cognitive ability must score in the 95th percentile on state-approved tests. However, to be identified as gifted in the visual arts, music, dance, or theater, students are first screened by a state-approved ability test, then teachers complete a checklist, and students participate in an audition or submit a portfolio of their work to be evaluated by a professional in that field who has been appointed by the district. Once identified, letters are sent to respective students’ families officially stating that their child is gifted.

Despite the district process of identification, Marcus was the only participant who knew he was identified by the district as being gifted prior to his participation in the study. It should be noted that Marcus was also the only participant to have experience with gifted classes, particularly in his elementary school prior to his brain injury. Furthermore, his mother, Miss Tammy, shared that Marcus’s third-grade teacher spoke with her about Marcus being gifted: “Mrs. Hawk, she was an art teacher but also his homeroom teacher. She said ‘You know what? Marcus is very smart. I’m going to recommend that he start the gifted intelligent class, the eclipse class’” (individual interview, May 29, 2013).

Of the remaining seven student participants, Ashley and Lawrence believed they were gifted despite not formally being notified by the district of their gifted status. Other students expressed their respective schools’ focus on their deficits. For instance, Erik revealed, “some of my teachers said I had problems, but I guess that was supposed to mean I was gifted” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). Interestingly, two of the parents, Miss Tammy and Miss Sarah, shared that they had communicated with their child’s school about their giftedness. Yet, Miss Helen explained that her communication with the school was generally focused on her son’s special needs: “I always thought [being] gifted was like if you [were] exceptional . . . So, I’ve never really heard anybody label him as gifted. It was always [as] special [education]” (individual interview, May 23, 2013). Similar to most of student participants, Miss Helen’s knowledge of her son’s talents was limited because of the schools’ narrow focus on his problems.

Conflicting views of giftedness

Although five students found out their gifted status as a part of the study, they all expressed their disagreement with their area of giftedness as identified by the district. For example, Jasmyne expressed that she had a way with words and creativity; however, the district identified her as being gifted in dance. When the researchers shared the district’s identification with Jasmyne, she replied,

I think that’s a complete lie because I can’t dance whatsoever. I don’t know who said that because I hardly [dance]. There are no dance classes here, first, and, second, I don’t dance. I mean . . . I’m Jamaican so we like wind [popular Jamaican dance], but I don’t do that in front of my family anyway . . . I do that by myself, when I’m listening to music but dancing, no. I don’t know who said that. [It’s] funny, really. (Individual interview, May 24, 2013)

There were similar reactions of shock and disbelief for the other four participants (Olivia, Erik, Louisa, Christina). In addition to his disagreement, Erik showed his own disengagement from the entire process because they were “just a whole bunch of labels” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). In addition, Miss Helen was in utter disbelief by the label of giftedness in dance that was bestowed on her son by the district because “he doesn’t even dance anymore,” and, at that, he “just danced around the house” when he was younger (individual interview, May 23, 2013).

Social and Personal Experience of Exceptionality

The second theme of the study focuses on the social and personal experiences of giftedness and disability. This theme includes five subcategories: (a) worry about school and the future, (b) resolve to overcome special needs, (c) celebrating giftedness, (d) personal experience of race, and (e) challenging peer relationships.

Worry about school and the future

Of the eight student participants, six (75%) expressed concerns and worry about their ability to be successful in school and in life. For example, Rosaline expressed her concern about high school: “like what am I going to do having IEP? What’s high school going to be like for me? You know, how hard it will be” (individual interview, May 24, 2013). Jasmyne also expressed similar worry of what her life was going to be like with her special needs:

The only thing that a disability can really annoy a person, is that they feel like everybody else has two skates and they’re [an individual with a disability] just trying to roll with one skate and they have to keep on pushing and pushing. And you just keep on wondering if it’s always going to be like this, always going to be referred to as a special student? . . . When some things don’t go your way, it feels like it’ll never change and that’s what a “disability” can do to you. It can make you feel like you’re inferior and everybody else is superior and you can’t get anywhere unless you do what everybody else does. (Individual interview, May 24, 2013)

In addition to anxiety about what the future holds, student participants also expressed concerns about their ability to do well in school. All three male participants talked about their ability to be successful in class as it related to their disability. For example, Lawrence shared, “the worst part is you feel worried that you don’t know. You really can’t read it . . . I tried to be the class clown just to get out of it” (individual interview, May 28, 2013).

All parent participants shared considerable concern for their child’s future beyond high school. Both Miss Helen and Miss Tammy were concerned about their children being limited because of their disability. For example, Miss Tammy was focused on Marcus’s (her son with a traumatic brain injury [TBI]) college admission process:

It’s frustrating to see the accelerated on the (state graduation test) but the C’s and D’s on his report card. The report card is not a reflection of him, but unfortunately when he goes to college, they go by what’s on the report card . . . as a parent, what can I do to explain what obstacles he has gone through and where he is now, but just let them know that is not a true reflection of him . . . I want him to go to college because that’s what he wants to do, but I want them to look at him for him . . . I want my son to not be limited, but understand he’s very smart but he’s had some setbacks. (Individual interview, May 29, 2013)

Miss Sarah’s concern was focused on Ashley’s own safety because of the way that Ashley’s impulsiveness and defiance work against each other. She wondered, “where’s she going to be the next time that she gets out there and does something stupid? Next time it may be a police officer and she’ll end up getting shot” (individual interview, May 22, 2013).

Resolve to overcome special needs

In addition to their worry for the future, several participants dissociated with their respective special education label. For example, Erik talked about his label being insignificant and that despite all of the tests, nothing was wrong with him. Erik also went on to talk about how his special needs were simply something to overcome when he said, “I just think like there’s a chemical imbalance in your brain basically and it just won’t allow you to do certain things, but I guess you have to overcome that at some point” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). Similarly, Olivia shared that she just needed to work on her special needs and learn to cope, and Lawrence, a senior with a specific learning disability and giftedness in visual arts, felt that he had to learn to become more independent as a result of having a special need. However, other participants also discussed their special needs as being normal or common. Ashley, a sophomore with an emotional disorder and giftedness in dance, shared that she felt as if everyone had ADHD when she said, “It really didn’t make me feel different, ’cause almost everybody has ADHD. People go, ‘You got ADHD?’ ‘Oh, I got that too’” (individual interview, May 29, 2013).

Celebrating giftedness

Although the majority of students learned about being gifted as a part of the study, it is not surprising that they all viewed being labeled gifted more positively. The student participants used terms such as special, happy, that being gifted meant the world to them, and that they really appreciated it. For both Ashley and Lawrence, their gifts meant that they were unique. For example, Lawrence, when talking about being gifted in visual arts, he shared, “I know I can do stuff that other people can’t” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). In addition, Marcus and Erik both saw their giftedness as a way to connect with others. More specifically, Marcus found that he blossomed socially in gifted classes because the kids “just kind of welcomed me in when I figured out I was gifted” (individual interview, May 29, 2013). After his first experiences in gifted classes and even after his traumatic brain injury, Marcus described himself as an outgoing, “social butterfly” with many friends in school.

Although student and parent participants expressed worry related to special needs, three student participants believed that being gifted gave them more self-esteem and confidence. Christina discussed having higher self-esteem and not caring about what people say. Furthermore, after receiving an award for improvement from her teacher, Christina felt “smart” and that she proved to her family that her IEP was not going to stop her from being successful. Similarly, Jasmyne saw that being gifted increased her own belief in herself: “it kind of gives me a chance like letting me know like if life’s not good right now it can get better, because I’m labeled gifted” (individual interview, May 24, 2013). Olivia also felt as if her gifts gave her more opportunities. Although she wanted to keep her special needs a secret from everyone, she wanted to shout from the rooftops about her gifts: “It seems like I can do anything in the world. I would just go out there and tell everybody what I have” (individual interview, May 22, 2013).

Personal experience of race

Interestingly, most of the students had more positive experiences and perceptions of their race in school. For example, five of the eight student participants expressed that being Black in their school was “cool” or “fine” because “there’s a lot of African Americans at this school.” These students were able to find strength in the sheer numbers of students who shared their cultural background as they were in predominately African American schools.

However, Jasmyne, Marcus, and Erik shared that they have experienced some challenges with stereotypical views of being Black. For example, Marcus felt that initially, teachers at his school stereotyped him as “another black, lazy kid,” and he had to work to overcome that stereotype (individual interview, May 29, 2013). Similarly, Jasmyne expressed that she had fewer opportunities, resources, and had to work harder to defeat stereotypes about Blacks:

Well, obviously, Caucasian people, they get more attention than black people do, especially academically and in the richer school districts, they get a lot more. They get I-Pads and better computers and better textbooks and they get to go here and do that and for a Black student everything is sort of how it is, this is how you get, this is how it is, it’s not going to change. And, if it does change, then the school will then have to come and take money from your mom’s pocket to make the change. So for a Black student, it’s really a lot harder because we already have that reputation, we already have that symbol of lower privileged, you’re not going to go anywhere, you’re going to get pregnant before you drop out, all that other stuff; whereas, with the Caucasian students, they’re uppity, they have money therefore they have better chances. You have to work a lot harder, you have to strive a lot harder, you have to think harder, you have to plan harder, [and] you have to want difference. If you don’t want anything different, then you’ll just be like every other typical Black person. (Individual interview, May 24, 2013)

Challenging peer relationships

Part of going to school is the social aspect of making friends. Although each student participant talked about having some friends, seven (87.5%) also shared that they were picked on or excluded because of their special needs. Despite being outgoing and having “a lot friends,” Ashley shared that her educational placement in the resource room became a source of hostility because her peers teased her. As a result, she was chronically tardy and even skipped classes to avoid her peers. Miss Sarah, Ashley’s mother, also noticed that Ashley’s interactions with her peers were detrimental to her success in school. More specifically, Miss Sarah described Ashley as a “puppet” in that she was an easy target for students to get a reaction out of “[be]cause if you say something to her, she’s going to give you a great performance . . . The only thing is Ashley [doesn’t] know how to control that reaction . . . So it’s like a lost battle” (individual interview, May 22, 2013).

Challenges and Strategies in the School Environment

The third theme highlights the interactions with educators as well as in the school environment. This theme includes four subcategories: (a) unsupportive educators and school environment, (b) positive experiences with educators, (c) limited experiences with school counselors, and (d) desired supports.

Unsupportive educators and school environment

Because most students were never in gifted classes, their school experiences with teachers were primarily with general and special educators. Nearly every student participant shared multiple stories about how their teachers and IEP tutors were unaccommodating to their special needs despite them having IEPs indicating required accommodations and supports. Several also shared that teachers’ lack of accommodation was often rude and hostile. For example, after Marcus’s traumatic brain injury, he experienced headaches, dizziness, nausea, and had trouble walking. When this would happen in class, he found that teachers were less than understanding, telling him to “get over it. It’s not that bad. You can wait till the end of the day” (individual interview, May 29, 2013). Similarly, Jasmyne’s middle-school, math teacher told her, “you should go back to where you came from,” communicating that students like her did not belong in that particular teacher’s classroom (individual interview, May 24, 2013). Other students shared that despite getting IEPs, teachers lacked knowledge of their specific needs and ignored the accommodations. As a result, students would alter their behavior to avoid drawing attention to their struggles in class.

All three parents also saw that some teachers and school staff were not accommodating to their child’s special needs. Miss Tammy reported that some teachers were not accommodating of her son, Marcus. She was told by teachers that Marcus needed to come to school more, but she explained, “yes, I understand that, but how can I send my son to school when he can’t walk, or he has this headache” (individual interview, May 29, 2013). Due to the teachers and staff insensitivity to Marcus’s special needs, Miss Tammy found herself becoming more involved in school by advocating for Marcus: “I’m still fighting with some teachers to this day. Teachers, I hate to say it, of my own color . . . to this day, I have to fight with them” (individual interview, May 29, 2013). Miss Sarah and Miss Helen both shared similar stories of having to fight for their child’s treatment in school.

Positive experiences with educators

Although all of the student participants had negative experiences with school staff, each could easily identify several staff members who provided them with support and encouragement. More specifically, the students noted that supportive teachers were those who took the time to build a positive relationship and invested in their overall success as a student and person. For example, Lawrence shared that some of his teachers were sensitive to his challenges with reading; therefore, they would spend extra time with him, going over the work again. They also complimented and encouraged Lawrence with his gifts, telling him that he “could go to school for that [visual arts]” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). Students as well as parents expressed feeling as if some educators were invested and felt responsible for their overall success. Ashley’s teacher, Mrs. Wright, went the extra mile to make sure she was successful: “If you don’t have your work turned in, she’ll give me all the papers that I need and then she’ll call my mom and make sure I did them. I think she really wants me to pass ninth grade” (individual interview, May 29, 2013). Similarly, Erik discussed how his teachers were “very motivated” for him to be successful. His teachers set goals and benchmarks for him throughout his schooling, starting small with getting to school, “then to pass middle school, then graduate high school and actually get a successful job” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). Students and parents also expressed their appreciation for educators’ ability to advocate on their behalf. For instance, Miss Tammy and Marcus discussed how the band director has been a positive force in Marcus’s overall success in high school: “He was very understanding about it [Marcus’s TBI]. His son went through something similar . . . [he] sat in meetings, put in a good word [for Marcus]” (individual interview, May 29, 2013).

Limited experiences with school counselors

Overall, student participants had limited or no interactions with the school counselors and school psychologists. However, two did have negative experiences with a counselor. Christina has had limited interactions with her high school counselor and did not think that she was too effective as indicated with the following quote: “I feel like she’s not a good school counselor at all” (individual interview, May 28, 2013). Interestingly, Ashley’s dissatisfaction derived from her experience with outside community counseling. Of all the student participants, Ashley had the most experience with counselors because of her behavior in school but still felt counseling was ineffective.

Of the few experiences shared, most of the student participants elaborated on how they sought out their school counselor only in high school. For example, Lawrence and Jasmyne, both seniors in high school, connected with the school counselor for academic concerns such as monitoring their grades or discussing their next steps after high school. Olivia was the only student participant who sought out the school counselor for personal concerns. She felt that the school counselor, Ms. Kimble, was supportive, “because she helps me with everything. I can go to her when I need help or anything like that” (individual interview, May 22, 2013).

Desired supports

When thinking about their particular needs, the majority of the student participants wanted teachers to build positive relationships with them. They wanted educators to understand and help them to be successful in school. Students wanted educators to be sensitive to their needs as learners as well as challenge them academically with more opportunities for learning and college preparatory courses. Parents also echoed the students’ desire for more support, specifically toward their special needs, but also wanted greater support outside of school from individuals (e.g., counselors, church members, the community at large, etc.) who could listen and provide assistance without judgment.

Because of limited experience with school counselors, very few participants had recommendations for better support from school counselors. Christina wanted school counselors to have better communication with students. Louisa expressed a need for school counselors to intervene with family issues. More specifically, she wanted the school counselor to “help [her mom] with drinking and drug addictions” (individual interview, May 24, 2013). Marcus wanted school counselors to be knowledgeable of brain injuries and follow the IEP.

Discussion

As previously stated, the current literature on twice-exceptionality has critical gaps pertaining to the experience of African American students in urban schools. If this gap persists, this population may continue to be underserved. The researchers found three themes that were central to the experience of twice-exceptional students in the urban school district. The significance of labels, the social and personal experience of exceptionality, and challenges and strategies in the school environment were the central themes that were generated from the data. These themes provide unique insight into the lived experience of African American students with special needs and who are gifted, particularly in the areas of art and music. As such, the findings of this study highlight some of the experiences and concerns expressed by a group of twice-exceptional African American students and their parents.

The findings also suggest that the experience of disability is different from that of giftedness. Students and parents both shared a myriad of negative experiences related to disability (Obiakor et al., 2010). For example, each student shared an internalized stigma that disability meant that they were “dumb” in addition to stereotypes around Black intellectual inferiority, which was reinforced by the negative interactions and low expectations from their peers and teachers (J. Banks, 2014, 2015; Trotman Scott et al., 2015). When these negative interactions and perceptions persist, students are at an increased likelihood to disengage from the learning environment, underachieve, and develop low self-esteem (Gardner & Mayes, 2013; Trotman Scott et al., 2015). Furthermore, students saw their disability as something to deal with it in private while trying to overcome related difficulties (Obiakor et al., 2010). This sort of reaction in the face of stigma is much like a typical response to stereotype threat, which in many ways can lead to isolation and ostracism from peers (Ogbu, 2003; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Interestingly, students and families’ experiences related to giftedness were markedly different. To be gifted was seen as an asset and something that should be celebrated (Henfield et al., 2008). However, it is important to note that their experience of giftedness is somewhat skewed as many of the student participants reported not knowing they were officially recognized as being gifted until participating in the study. Because of their particular giftedness in the arts and the lack of school resources to provide services in these areas, students have not had the opportunity to develop their gifted identities. Although these students are twice-exceptional, it is likely that their experiences more closely align with the experiences of African American students who have been identified as having a disability. This begs the question of the purpose of gifted identification if there are no services provided. This is perhaps, not unique, because many schools are more likely to provide services related to specific subjects such as English language arts and mathematics (Callahan, Moon, & Oh, 2014).

The lack of gifted education for these students despite being identified as such is of particular interest. Gifted education provides students with the opportunity to hone their skills in more rigorous courses with highly skilled educators among equally skilled peers (Henfield et al., 2008; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Furthermore, the rigor of gifted education increases future preparedness and opportunities (Henfield et al., 2008; Reis & Renzulli, 2010). Gifted education also provides opportunities for students to develop positive identities and perceptions around their talent and uniqueness as a gifted learner. As such, students did not have access to these supports or opportunities to further develop their talents, as they were not included in gifted education programs across the district. Although participation in gifted education alone would not shield students from negative experiences regarding their identities (i.e., race, disability, etc.), it may also serve as a catalyst in promoting positive development in academics, socio-emotional, and career domains.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study offers detailed information regarding the lives of twice-exceptional African American students, their parents, and educators. All data for the study were collected through individual interviews, demographic questionnaires, and school profiles. Although the interviews and documents were insightful, the findings of the study would have been strengthened if observations of the school environment, including student interactions with peers as well as student and parent interactions with teachers, administrators, and school counselors, had been made. School observations would also hve provided a more in-depth understanding of student, parent, and educator experiences and provide an overall context.

In addition, all of the participants in this study were identified as being gifted in non-academic areas (e.g., instrumental music, vocal music, dance, etc.), and only one student had experienced gifted education classes. Future research studies should incorporate the experience of twice-exceptional African American students who are identified as academically gifted and or are receiving services. Such studies would shed light on the impact of gifted services on overall experiences in education as well as how students conceptualize their race, disability, and giftedness. Another limitation of the study is the inclusion of three mothers of student participants in the study. Their experiences are critical in developing a holistic understanding of twice-exceptionality; however, future studies should incorporate the voices of more parents and guardians as they discuss how they can support the success of their twice-exceptional child.

Furthermore, future studies should explore how differences in identification affect students’ experience. More specifically, students who experience their giftedness first may have a very different experience from students who experience disability first. Likewise, experiences may differ greatly based on disability. For example, a study might explore the differences in experience of twice-exceptional African American students who have physical disabilities in comparison with those with learning disabilities.

Follow-up studies with twice-exceptional African American students explore the issues they face in transitioning into post-secondary educational opportunities. This study would highlight how and whether students’ understanding of their unique needs and gifts changes over time as well as their experience in finding supports in a new system. The findings in this study may assist high school counselors as they support twice-exceptional African American students prepare for post-secondary opportunities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a research grant from the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. The information reported in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the funding organization.

About the Authors

Renae D. Mayes, NCC, is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services at Ball State University, where she also serves as the director of the School Counseling Program.

James L. Moore III is a distinguished professor of Urban Education in the College of Education and Human Ecology. In addition, he is the director of the Todd Anthony Bell National Resource Center on the African American Male at the Ohio State University.

References

American School Counselor Association. (2010). Ethical standards for school counselors. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American School Counselor Association. (2012). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Antshel

K. M.

Faraone

S. V.

Maglione

Doyle

Fried

Seidman

Biederman

(2008). Temporal stability of ADHD in the high-IQ population: Results from the MGH longitudinal family studies of ADHD. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 817-825. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e318172eecf

Assouline

S. G.

Foley Nicpon

Doobay

(2009). Profoundly gifted girls and autism spectrum disorder: A psychometric case study comparison. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 89-106. doi:10.1177/0016986208330565

Assouline

S. G.

Foley Nicpon

Whiteman

(2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with specific learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 102-115. doi:10.1177/001698620935597

Atwood

Lopez

G. R.

(2014). Let’s be critically honest: Towards a messier counterstory in critical race theory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27, 1134-1154. doi:10.1080/09518398.2014.916011

Banks

(2014). Barriers and supports to postsecondary transition: Case studies of African American students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 28-39. doi:10.1177/0741932513512209

Banks

(2015). Gangsters and wheelchairs: Urban teachers’ perceptions of disability, race and gender. Disability & Society, 30, 569-582. doi:10.1080/09687599.2015.1030066

Banks

Hughes

M. S.

(2013). Double consciousness: Postsecondary experiences of African American males with disabilities. The Journal of Negro Education, 82, 368-381. doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0368

10.

Banks

J. A.

(2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37, 129-139. doi:10.3102/0013189X08317501

11.

Bianco

(2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 285-293. doi:10.2307/4126967

12.

Bianco

Leech

N. L.

(2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 319-334. doi:10.1177/0888406409356392

13.

Borrero

N. E.

Yeh

C. J.

Cruz

C. I.

Suda

J. E.

(2012). School as a context for “othering” youth and promoting cultural assets. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 1-37.

14.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). Ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

(2014). National survey of gifted programs. Charlottesville: University of Virginia National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

16.

Corbin

Strauss

(1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

17.

Foley Nicpon

Allmon

Sieck

Stinson

R. D.

(2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 3-17. doi:10.1177/0016986210382575

18.

Foley Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

(2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-exceptional client. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 202-211. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00196.x

19.

Foley Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

(2013). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 169-180. doi:10.1177/0016986213490021

20.

Foley Nicpon

Doobay

Assouline

S. G.

(2010). Teacher, parent, and self perceptions of psychosocial functioning in intellectually gifted children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 40, 1028-1038. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0952-8

21.

Ford

D. Y.

(2010). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

22.

Ford

D. Y.

(2011). Multicultural gifted education: Rationale, models, strategies, and resources (2 ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

23.

Ford

D. Y.

(2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

24.

Ford

D. Y.

Moore

J. L.

III. (2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low achievement, and achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban school contexts. Urban Review, 45, 399-415. doi:10.1007/s11256-013-0256-3

25.

Ford

D. Y.

Trotman Scott

Moore

J. L.

III Amos

S. O.

(2013). Gifted education and culturally different students: Examining prejudice and discrimination via microaggressions. Gifted Child Today, 36, 205-208. doi:10.1177/1076217513487069

26.

Ford

D. Y.

Whiting

G. W.

(2011). Beyond testing: Social and psychological considerations in recruiting and retaining gifted Black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 131-155. doi:10.1177/016235321003400106

27.

Gardner

III Mayes

R. D.

(2013). African American learners. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57, 22-29. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2013.731273

28.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

29.

Glesne

(2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

30.

Hartnett

Nelson

J. M.

Rinn

A. N.

(2003). Gifted or ADHD? The possibilities of misdiagnosis. Roeper Review, 26, 73-76. doi:10.1080/02783190609554371

31.

Henfield

M. S.

Moore

J. L.

III Wood

(2008). Inside and outside gifted education programming: Hidden challenges for African American students. Exceptional Children, 74, 433-450.

32.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)

33.

Leggett

D. G.

Shea

Wilson

J. A.

(2010). Advocating for twice-exceptional students: An ethical obligation. Research in the Schools, 17(2), 1-10.

34.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

35.

McDonnall

Cavenaugh

B. S.

Giesen

(2012). The relationship between parental involvement and mathematics achievement for students with visual impairments. Journal of Special Education, 45, 204-215. doi:10.1177/0022466910365169

36.

National Education Association (2006). The twice-exceptionality dilemma. Washington, DC: Author.

37.

National Education Association. (2010) Code of ethics of the education profession. Washington, DC: Author.

38.

Nutt Williams

Morrow

S. L.

(2009). Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: A pan-paradigmatic perspective. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 576-582. doi:10.1080/10503300802702113

39.

Obiakor

Beachum

F. D.

Harris

M. K.

(2010). African American students’ experiences with special education in Milwaukee public schools. Western Journal of Black Studies, 34, 425-437.

40.

Ogbu

J. U.

(2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

41.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 308-317. doi:10.1177/001440299706300403

43.

Rinn

A. N.

Nelson

J. M.

(2009). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of behaviors characteristic of ADHD and giftedness. Roeper Review, 31, 18-26. doi:10.1080/02783190802527349

44.

Steele

C. M.

Aronson

(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

45.

Strauss

(1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Trotman Scott

Mayes

R. D.

Griffith

K. G.

Garrett

M. T.

Watkins

(2015). Effective involvement with urban special education services: What every school counselor should know to support Black male students. In Henfield

Washington

(Eds.), Black male student success in the 21st century urban schools: School counseling for equity, access, and achievement (pp. 173-194). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

49.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

A. X.

Swanson

J. D.

Quek

Chandler

(2009). Academic and affective profiles of low-income, minority, and twice-exceptional gifted learners: The role of gifted program membership in enhancing self. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 702-739. doi:10.1177/1932202X0902000406

50.

Willard-Holt

Weber

Morrison

K. L.

Horgan

(2014). Twice-exceptional learners’ perspectives on effective learning strategies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 247-262. doi:10.1177/0016986213501076