2 Gifted-EBD: Program Design and Next Steps

For students who are identified as twice exceptional with gifted-EBD, program delivery continues to be split into two curricula. In fact, literature on gifted-EBD programming indicates there is a perceived necessity to ‘remediate’ the EBD almost to the exclusion of a child’s giftedness (David, 2017; Hold, Weber, Morrison & Horgan, 2013). Therefore, twice-exceptional students often vacillate between two segregated special education programs, which causes a disconnect between their strengths and needs. EBD programs might limit expression of gifts and talents, with inadequate opportunities to demonstrate higher cognitive ability. Likewise, gifted programs are often not equipped to accommodate for emotional-behavior challenges, and biases about ‘perfect’ gifted students may result in viewing their emotional-behavior issues as a result of poor-parenting, low SES-related problems or even laziness to live up to a perfect gifted ideal. The content for this poster presentation was born from a review of extant literature on giftedness and EBD. Although research on programming strategies for gifted-EBD students is limited, there is evidence to support their strengths and challenges are mutually inclusive and that neither the gifted nor emotional-behavior identification is more urgent than the other. To this end, embedding an affective component to the overall curriculum provides valuable information about the student’s unique learning profile, thereby equipping gifted-EBD students with self-knowledge for making choices to support their needs and goals. Collaborative intent among human resources, which is inclusive of the student’s voice, is essential for building a bond that strengthens and guides advocacy toward the student’s potential. Consequently, this review of literature has resulted in the development of next steps that outline what is possible for gifted-EBD students. First, a framework can create a united system that recognizes strengths with emotional-behavioral challenges, thus fostering the conceptual structure for building a personalized framework for the student. Second, participants’ voices should be shared first-person throughout the collaborative process so that their perceptions and experiences inform program development and choices. Third, concurrent programming must address strengths and areas of need/challenges simultaneously. Next, professional development for school personnel should advance knowledge about the nature and needs of the gifted child and the emotionally-behavior challenged child, thus creating thoughtful connection that encompasses the student’s individual profile. Finally, communication and language should be void of expressed misconceptions about giftedness and/or assumptions for conformity to program constraints. Instead, language used to communicate with EBD-gifted children should promote a respectful and positive approach toward their unique profile.

Author(s):