Identification and assessment of gifted students with learning disabilities

Theory Into Practice, Spring, 2005 by Lilia M. Ruban, Sally M. Reis

Students who exhibit characteristics of both academic talents and learning disabilities pose quandaries for educators. The misconceptions, definitions, and expected outcomes for these types of students further complicate the issues facing appropriate programming for this population. Awareness of these students' needs is becoming more common with teachers of both gifted students and those with learning disabilities, yet few school districts provide interventions or programs for this group (Boodoo et al., 1989; Newman, 2004). Problems with identification and delivery of services to these students may exist at many levels, including varying definitions and criteria for eligibility, referral process, masking effects (i.e., when a student's giftedness masks his or her disability and vice versa), political issues, and other issues. It appears that better understanding of these complex issues may arise from exploring the connections of ideas from both the fields of giftedness and learning disabilities.

Prevalence Rates as a Function of the Adherence to a Particular Definition

The views on the nature and definitions of giftedness have changed continually, and their evolutions have moved toward including an increasingly more diverse set of capabilities; however, no universally agreed-on definition of giftedness exists. Drawing attention to this lack of consensus, McCoach and colleagues (2004) suggested that a school district's implicit or explicit definition can actually determine eligibility for specialized services. In some states, for example, only 1-2% of the school-aged student population is identified as gifted, whereas in others the percentages are 5% or higher. In the talent pool approach, reflecting broadened conceptions of giftedness, as many as 10-15% of students in the total population in a particular school can be identified as having high potential using a flexible and inclusive system with multiple criteria (Renzulli & Reis, 1997).

An interesting similar phenomenon has been reported in the field of learning disabilities. According to Gresham (2002), findings in the last 15 years have pointed to a lack of consistent definition in policy or practice in the identification of LD students, a major stumbling block to effective research and practice. MacMillan and Siperstein (2002) explained that the population of LD students has changed over the years as public schools have responded to societal and policy changes and the ways in which these have affected both general and special education. For example, between 1976-77 and 1992-93, the number of children served as LD nationwide increased by 198% (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). Commenting on the magnitude of this increase, MacMillan, Gresham, Siperstein, and Bocian (1996) wrote: "Were these epidemic-like figures interpreted by the Center for Disease Control one might reasonably expect to find a quarantine imposed on the public schools of America" (p. 169). Presently, students with LD account for 52% of all children with disabilities in the public school system, and represent more than 5% of the total school population, but these numbers greatly vary by state (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Gresham (2002) qualified the process by which schools identify students as learning disabled as "confusing, unfair, and logically inconsistent" (p. 467). MacMillan and Siperstein (2002) provided an interesting explanation for understanding the trends in the number and nature of LD students being served by emphasizing that, in reality, a distinction exists between "research-identified" and "school-identified" perspectives.