Abstract
Some students are twice-exceptional (i.e., they are gifted and have a disability). Such students are likely to qualify for educational support through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. However, little is known about their families’ experiences in accessing supports; it is possible that their disabilities overshadow their giftedness. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of families of twice-exceptional students with Section 504 plans. Altogether, 20 families of twice-exceptional students participated in individual interviews. Participants reported that individual, family, and system characteristics impacted their experiences with accessing accommodations under the auspice of Section 504. The student’s giftedness and ability to mask often precluded access to needed accommodations. A family’s use of strategist and/or formal advocacy, professional and/or lived experience with disability, and social networks facilitated access to needed accommodations. Participants frequently reported that educators and administrators prevented access to needed accommodations. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Over 3.4 million public school students are annually enrolled in gifted programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). The National Association for Gifted Children (2019) defines giftedness as performing “. . . at higher levels compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains” (p. 1). Giftedness is often characterized as having one or more of the following characteristics: high general intellect, specific academic aptitude, creativity and leadership ability, and exemplary talent in the visual or performing arts (Turnbull et al., 2023). While there are many strengths (e.g., high intellect) associated with giftedness, there can also be challenges. For example, gifted students may have unique social and emotional needs including worse well-being, less likely to attend school, and more likely to have perfectionism (Cash & Lin, 2021). Perfectionism and/or social or emotional needs may result in underachievement among gifted students (Siegle, 2020).
Gifted students may also have disabilities. Students identified as both gifted and learning disabled are commonly known as twice exceptional. The 2014 National Joint Commission on Twice Exceptional Learners defines this population as: Twice-exceptional learners are students who demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or more domains such as math, science, technology, the social arts, the visual, spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity and who manifest one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria (Reis et al., 2014, p. 222).
There are other definitions of “twice exceptional.” For example, Foley-Nicpon and colleagues (2013) explained that twice-exceptional students include, but are not limited to, those identified with academic gifts and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and learning disability (LD). The 2014 Joint Commission definition of twice exceptional is more inclusive, focusing on the combination of academic giftedness and all disabilities. In addition, this definition draws particular attention to the individual’s giftedness and areas of strengths and does not focus simply on their deficits.
Although there is no federal legislation that mandates state or local educational institutions to offer special education services to students who are gifted, it is possible that twice-exceptional students may qualify for Section 504 under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. To be eligible for a Section 504 plan, a student must have an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as learning. Many gifted students are identified as having disabilities including students with autism, learning disabilities, and attention deficit (hyperactivity) disorder (ADD/ADHD; Desvaux et al., 2024)—such students may qualify for support under Section 504. Unfortunately, limited research has explored access to educational support among twice-exceptional students (Antshel et al., 2008). To develop a baseline understanding of access to educational support among twice-exceptional students, the purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of families of twice-exceptional students with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Individual characteristics of the twice-exceptional student may impact their experience with accessing Section 504 supports. Individual characteristics may include the ability to mask one’s disability or the visibility of one’s disability. Although not examined within the context of Section 504 or specific to students who are twice exceptional, research about gifted students has suggested that they often engage in masking. In a study of 90 gifted and talented students across five countries, students reported masking their abilities to conform to their peers (Cross et al., 2019). Another characteristic may be the invisible nature of giftedness and/or one’s disability. Invisible disabilities are not often apparent to others (Kimball et al., 2016). Most of the research about individuals with invisible disabilities has been explored in the context of post-secondary education, wherein students with invisible disabilities report struggling to advocate for themselves and access needed supports (Sapir & Banai, 2024) or with respect to autistic students who may mask their disabilities in K–12 school settings (Goscicki et al., in press).
Family characteristics may also impact experiences with Section 504. The research about students with individualized education programs (IEPs, which provide special education services to students with disabilities) suggests that certain family traits impact access to educational supports. One of these traits is the ability of the family to advocate for services. In a seminal study about parent advocacy, Trainor (2010) identified four types of advocacy: intuitive (i.e., trusting parental instincts); disability expert (i.e., having expertise about the type of disability of the child); strategist (i.e., learning one’s rights and utilizing formal and informal advocacy strategies); and agent of systemic change (i.e., enacting broad changes for all students with disabilities). Research has underscored that strategist advocacy can be effective in improving access to special education services (Burke et al., 2019). Disability connectedness may also impact access. Connectedness refers to being a part of the disability community or support from friends who also have a child with disabilities. Indeed, research suggests that families who are marginalized (e.g., families of children with disabilities) often rely on peer support to advocate for services (Miller Amanda, 2019).
Other familial traits that could matter in the context of accessing Section 504 include the family’s lived and professional experiences. Regarding the former, parents with disabilities report having greater knowledge and understanding of system navigation (O’Toole, 2013); this lived experience generalizes to accessing educational supports under Section 504. With respect to the latter, having a professional background in a disability field may also facilitate access to Section 504. Indeed, research about parent advocacy among families of children with disabilities who are also in the education field (e.g., teachers, therapists; Taylor et al., 2019) has found that families rely on their professional training to access needed supports.
Educators often lack knowledge about Section 504. In a study of knowledge about Section 504 among school personnel, 59% of practitioners reported “never” or only “sometimes” having received information about Section 504 policies or procedures (Madaus & Shaw, 2008). Also, educators’ perceptions and treatment of families of children with disabilities may impact access. Extant research suggests that when professionals are willing to partner with families (i.e., respect families, be responsive to their concerns), students demonstrate greater access to needed services and supports (Turnbull et al., 2021).
To date, there has been little investigation into the experiences of families of twice-exceptional students with their access to Section 504 in K–12 settings. However, per the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, gifted students with disabilities may be eligible for support under Section 504. By interviewing families of twice-exceptional students with Section 504 plans, we can identify the individual (i.e., student), family (e.g., parent), and educators within systems (e.g., teacher responsiveness to parent concerns) that impact their experiences in schools. Accordingly, the research questions for this study are: (1) How do individual student characteristics relate to their experience with Section 504? (2) How do family characteristics relate to their experience with Section 504? and (3) How do educators within system characteristics relate to their experience with Section 504?
Method
Researcher Identity and Positionality
Our authorship team was comprised of six individuals including two professors, two doctoral students, a master’s student, and a research coordinator. Two members of our team have family members with disabilities, and three members identify as people with a disability. Everyone on our team has experience of working with individuals with disabilities. Collectively, our team believes that every student with a disability—including students who are gifted—is entitled to meaningful accommodations and support to progress in the general education curriculum. Throughout the project, our team met to discuss our values and biases as we analyzed the data.
Participants
This study is part of a larger project to explore the experiences of students with disabilities and/or their families with Section 504 plans. To be included in the larger project, the individual needed to be a student or the family member of a student who applied for and/or received a Section 504 plan from school and be willing to complete an interview in English or Spanish. Given that the focus of this study is on family experiences of twice-exceptional children, this sample was further restricted to only include family members of gifted children.
In this study, there were 20 participants. On average, participants were 44 years of age (SD = 6.71, range 32–65). With respect to race and ethnicity, 80% (n = 16) of participants identified as White and 20% (n = 4) identified as individuals of color. All participants completed the interview in English. The participants reflected 14 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington). Of the sample, 95% (n = 19) of the participants identified as mothers of twice-exceptional children; one participant identified as a legal guardian. All participants reported that their children were identified as gifted and had a disability (e.g., ADD/ADHD, autism). On average, their children were 13 years of age (SD = 3.37, range 6–19) (see Table 1).
Socio-Demographics of Participants.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited in a variety of ways. Namely, there was a recruitment flyer, in English and Spanish, for this project. The flyer was disseminated to disability organizations, family organizations, and parent support groups throughout the United States. To aid in recruitment, each participant received a $60 gift card. Specifically, each participant received a $50 gift card after completing the interview and a $10 gift card after completing the member check. Recruitment ended after we determined a redundancy of themes.
Procedures
All research procedures were approved by the University Institutional Review Board. Upon reviewing the recruitment flyer, an interested individual read the consent form and provided consent via RedCap, an online survey platform. After providing consent, the individual completed a demographic survey. Following the survey, a research team member contacted the individual to arrange the interview at the date and time preferred by the participant. The participant chose whether to conduct the interview via phone or Zoom; all participants chose to conduct the interview over Zoom. All interviewers were trained to conduct interviews with fidelity.
Each interview was recorded. At the beginning of the interview, the interviewer explained their connection to disability to establish rapport with the participant (O’Toole, 2013). Then, the interviewer conducted the interview. On average, each interview was 47 min (range = 18–98 min). All interviews were transcribed verbatim. The interviewer checked each recording to ensure its accuracy. After completing the interview, an artificial intelligence (AI) mechanism created a summary of the interview. The interviewer reviewed the summary to ensure its accuracy and completeness. The summary was e-mailed to the participant to check its accuracy, completeness, and whether anything needed to be added or changed.
Fidelity to the Interview Protocol
An independent researcher reviewed each interview for fidelity to the interview protocol. Specifically, the researcher checked that each question on the protocol was asked during each interview. Fidelity to the interview protocol was 100%.
Measures
Demographic Survey
Each participant completed a 5–10 min demographic survey. In the survey, the participant answered demographic questions (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status) and questions about the Section 504 process (e.g., whether their child had a Section 504 plan, whether the family had ever filed a procedural safeguard about Section 504). The survey responses were used to characterize the sample and identify patterns in the data.
Interview Protocol
The interview protocol was developed based on extant literature about Section 504 plans in K–12 schools (e.g., Burke et al., 2016; Zirkel, 2023). The interview protocol was piloted three times with parents of children with Section 504 plans. Minor changes were made in response to the piloting (e.g., change the order of questions; refine the wording of a question). The interview protocol was comprised of three sections of questions: (1) applying for a Section 504 plan; (2) developing the Section 504 plan; and (3) implementing the Section 504 plan (see Appendix A for the interview protocol).
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, we used emergent design (Patton, 2002). First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by independently reading each transcript multiple times (Tesch, 1990). Then, we openly coded in response to our research questions (i.e., which individual, family, and system characteristics impacted experiences with Section 504). Open coding initially occurred with six transcripts, as research suggests that most themes can be identified within six interviews (Guest et al., 2006). We met to discuss and compare our codes. We created a codebook with our collective codes. We returned to the same six interviews using the codebook to identify whether there were any new codes. We revised the codebook again. We used the codebook to code the remaining 14 interviews. We met to compare our codes. If we had different codes, we discussed the codes until we reconciled the codes to be in agreement with one another.
We considered the theme about family professional or lived experience. Initially, we had 35 codes related to professional (e.g., being a special education teacher, being a therapist) or lived experience (e.g., having other children with disabilities, having a disability oneself). We created two categories: family professional experience and family lived experience. Then, we combined the two categories into one theme: family professional or lived experience.
Trustworthiness
Several methods were used to ensure the trustworthiness of the data collection and analysis procedures (Brantlinger et al., 2005). Peer debriefing was used throughout data collection and analysis. During data collection and analysis, our team met weekly to discuss the project, identify themes, and discern potential patterns in the data. Also, data triangulation was used among the surveys, summaries, and interview data. Two-level member checking was also used in this project. As a first-level member check, at the end of the interview, the interviewer summarized what was said during the interview. At that time, the participant had the opportunity to correct any mischaracterizations in the interviewer summary. As a second-level member check, each participant was sent an AI-generated summary of their interview to check for accuracy. Nine participants responded to the member check. Some participants suggested minor changes to the summary (e.g., to add a detail about a school professional).
Findings
Student Characteristics
Several student characteristics impacted participants’ experiences with Section 504: the need to mask one’s disability and the presence of an invisible disability.
Masking One’s Disability Made It More Difficult to get Access to Section 504
Some participants reported that their youths’ giftedness masked the impacts of a disability, making it more difficult to receive support under Section 504. Because of masking, some participants reported that educators saw their children as “high achieving” and not in need of educational support. Cindy, a mother from Missouri, reported that, despite having autism, her daughter’s ability to mask her disability prevented from her from initially receiving a Section 504 plan: We [parents] tried to point out that a lot of times these things [disabilities] are overlooked because those girls can mask. They don’t show their struggles. They do what they can to fit in and they [the school] kind of dismiss that. They [the school] said, “Oh, yeah, we know about that. But still, she doesn’t have a disability that’s impairing her major life functions.”
Other participants similarly reported that giftedness masked their children’s disabilities. From Washington, Joanna, a mom of a 12-year-old girl with ADHD and autism, reported: “It [giftedness] kind of covered up her disabilities. And so, it became really hard to like, say, ‘She actually does need to have these other things [supports] in place.’” Some participants reported that giftedness and, specifically, good grades masked the need for educational support. Another participant, Olga, a licensed social worker, had a son who was diagnosed with ADHD at age 5. Despite his early diagnosis, the first time her son received educational support was in the seventh grade. She reported, “So he [son] was getting good grades. So, then they [educators] don’t want, they don’t feel like they have to do anything if the grades are okay.”
Having an Invisible Disability Made It Difficult to Qualify for Section 504
Most participants reported that the combination of having a child who was gifted and had an invisible disability (i.e., a disability that is not immediately discernible) made it difficult to qualify for a Section 504 plan. Because the disability was not obvious, some participants reported that educators refused to believe the child had a disability. Participant Crystal, a 49-year-old mother, reflected on her initial meeting with the school to discuss whether her daughter would qualify for a Section 504 plan. Crystal’s daughter had a musculoskeletal condition that limited her strength; as a result, her daughter would eventually need to use a wheelchair at school. Crystal reported that the educators refused her daughter a Section 504 plan: “They [educators] didn’t believe her medical diagnosis, so they didn’t believe that her issues were real or that they could progress and get worse.” Consequently, Crystal reported educating school professionals on “what her [daughter’s] issues were and how energy conservation with joint protection was so important because this is something that will affect her for the rest of her life.” Similarly, Mikaya, a mother from California, compared ease of access to Section 504 among students with visible and invisible disabilities: With that population [individuals with visible disabilities] they also have issues and access to their services as well but it’s different. They [individuals with visible disabilities] are looking at more about types of services, quality of services, transportation . . . I’m not even dealing with those issues yet. Our child, and others like him [with invisible disabilities], we can’t even make it to the discussion yet. They [educators] won’t let him in the gate, because they [school] has gatekeepers set up. The [individuals with visible disabilities] population are usually in the gate already because they can show up at the gate and be let in. They are obviously welcomed in. It’s the children, like mine, who show up and they don’t look like they are sick enough or they don’t look disabled enough. It makes it so much hard to even get through the gate if you don’t look like you need services.
Twelve of the participants shared that having an invisible disability made it harder to qualify for a Section 504 plan.
Family Characteristics
Several family characteristics impacted participant experiences with Section 504: having professional or lived experience in disability; utilizing strategist advocacy and social capital; and pursuing formal advocacy options.
Professional and/or Lived Experience in Disability Made It Easier to Access Section 504
Some participants reported that having either a professional background in a disability-related field and/or lived experience in disability made it easier to access Section 504. Professional experiences included having roles such as special education teacher, social worker, occupational therapist, school psychologist, nurse practitioner, general education teacher, attorney, tutor, and advocate. Olga reported that being a Licensed Clinical Social Worker gave her the knowledge and advocacy skills to help her child access a Section 504 plan: Being a social worker, I’ve been trained legally knowing some of these things. So, absolutely, my professional knowledge and work has helped me to be able to know the different options available so that I can really push and self-advocate for my child.
In addition, Lydia reported that her and her husband were both school psychologists; their professional experiences enabled them to more quickly identify that their child needed a Section 504 plan. She stated, “I told him [husband] that I was starting to see some things [with our child] and I wanted to get a second opinion from someone else. That way, I’m not biased about our child.”
Some participants reported that their lived experiences with disability facilitated their access to Section 504. Lived experiences included having a disability themselves and/or having multiple children with disabilities. Sarah identified as having a disability herself in addition to having a grandchild who was gifted and has a visual and hearing impairment. She reported that her self-advocacy enabled her to better advocate for her grandchild: “I already knew about Section 504, so I was prepared for the work ahead.” Lauren, a 36-year-old Native American woman from Michigan, identified as having ADHD herself; she reported that her own experience helped her advocate for her daughter with a physical disability and ADHD: “I’m a woman who has ADHD, so I see the stigma. But knowing this, it has allowed me to advocate since I already have to do it on a daily basis.” Some participants reported that their lived experience raising multiple children with disabilities facilitated their access to Section 504. Layla had two children with Section 504 plans. Because of her experience with her older child, she reported that she was familiar with the Section 504 process and her rights: “I knew of it [Section 504] before because my older son is on one for ADHD so it made it easier since we have already been through the process.” Similarly, Joanna described having multiple family members with autism. She stated: We accepted her [daughter] like that because she was very much like other people in our family. My dad, sister, and nephew are either ADD, autistic, or both. It’s okay. It’s a very big thing in the family to have something like that. I’m also on the Autism Spectrum too so like it’s a big part of our family gene pool.
Strategist Advocacy and Social Capital Facilitated Access to Section 504
Some participants reported that strategist advocacy and social capital improved their access to Section 504. Regarding the former, participants characterized strategist advocacy as: knowing the law, understanding how the school system works, doing research, and taking classes about Section 504. Nicole, a mother who completed some high school, had four children with disabilities. She reported: I no longer wanted to believe what they [educators] were telling me so I started taking classes. I took a class called “The legal framework of IEP and Section 504 process” . . . because of the class, I was able to point out how the school was not in compliance and started to hold them accountable.
In addition, Elaine reported doing research about Section 504 by reading different websites. She shared, “I was able to read all kinds of websites to familiarize myself with Section 504 plans. So, I knew what to ask for when meeting with the school.”
Participants also reported that social capital helped them access Section 504. Social capital included meeting other families of children with disabilities. Mikaya had a son with autism. She reported using social media to connect with other families of children with disabilities: I’m not alone because I am part of these social media groups now. . . . These social media groups have other parents in our situation. It’s amazing to know that we aren’t alone. I learned what questions to ask during the meetings and how to better advocate for my son’s needs.
Cindy reported using her social network to navigate educational supports: We had friends with kids that had gone through the same [Section 504] process. We had friends who are occupational therapists, and we were put in touch with other families within the school system that had experience with going through the different steps. They were able to guide us and say, “Well, you need to explain this or that to make your case.”
Lauren, a mother of a twice-exceptional 14-year-old, reported gaining social capital from advocacy and support groups: “My advocacy skills came from the Parent Advocacy Group in my state. I actually give them the credit for me knowing about Section 504 because we learned so much about it from them.”
Pursuit of Formal Advocacy Increased Implementation of Section 504 Plans
Some participants pursued formal advocacy options including hiring special education advocates, receiving legal guidance, and filing formal complaints or hearings. Some participants hired special education advocates either privately or via their state’s Protection and Advocacy organization. Participants reported that advocates attended their Section 504 meetings. Elyse, a mother of a 13-year-old with autism in Colorado, reported: I did hire an advocate because . . . we had some trouble with the Vice Principal so as I was setting up a meeting so that my son could go back to the school [that I had pulled him out of]. I had to up my advocacy . . . I specifically said, “This person [Vice Principal] is not going to be on my child’s team.” These are the people I want to come to the table. My advocate is coming.
Some participants reported hiring attorneys. Crystal, a mother of a 17-year-old with a heart condition in Ohio, retained a lawyer when the school required her daughter with a physical disability to stand up from her wheelchair to exit the school building and access the school bus. Crystal shared: My daughter had to use a wheelchair at school due to her disability. The previous summer, her shoulder started dislocating so I had made a big deal about her having to open the building doors. I found out that they [the school] was leaving her in the lobby until the bus came and she had to try to push herself, open the door, go down the ramp, and get on the bus with her wheelchair. We ended up hiring a lawyer because after a couple of conversations with the school, they [the school] didn’t see anything wrong with this. Having the lawyer involved really helped get the school to understand that this wasn’t right.
Some participants reported threatening and/or pursuing formal complaints. Cindy, a mother of a 9-year-old with autism and a mental health diagnosis in Missouri, shared that her child was initially deemed ineligible for a Section 504 plan. After threatening legal action, the school deemed the student eligible for Section 504. Cindy reported, “With this due process hearing, the tone really changed . . . it [the school] was a lot more cooperative and collaborative at that point.” Similarly, Nicole, a mother of a 9-year-old with ADD and anxiety in Texas, reported, “The only reason why we got support is because I threatened [to sue] them [the school].” Brandi, a mother of a 6-year-old with ADD in Tennessee, filed a grievance against her school. Brandi reported, “Since he [son] is in the gifted room, they [school] don’t want to do the Section 504.” However, the lack of Section 504 supports led to further challenges. Brandi remarked, “I actually filed a grievance at his first school because she [the teacher] recommended we put him out [of school] because of behavior and because of attendance.”
System Characteristics
Several system characteristics impacted participants’ experiences with Section 504. Specifically, participants reported that supportive administrators and educators improved their experiences with Section 504. Unfortunately, six participants reported that administrators and educators impeded their access to Section 504. Such participants characterized their resistance as administrators incorrectly understanding Section 504, educators not knowing the child had a Section 504 plan, educators refusing to implement the Section 504 plan, and/or administrators and educators treating students and families without respect.
Receptive Administrators and Educators Improved Access to Section 504
Although most participants reported difficult experiences with accessing Section 504, some participants reported that school professionals were responsive to their concerns; accordingly, participants reported positive experiences in accessing Section 504 supports. Kristina, a mother from Ohio, reported that her child was initially served on an IEP but eventually changed to a Section 504 plan. Upon reflection of the change, Kristina shared that it was an easy shift because of the school’s responsiveness and collegiality, “It [the change] was very easy. Everybody got along and there were no arguments going through the different steps.” Upon reflecting on the eligibility process for a Section 504 plan, Jessica reported that her experience was positive because the school professionals were receptive to her child’s disability diagnosis: The school was pretty receptive [of my child’s disability]. I reached out to the Guidance Counselor and identified that I believed that my child was in need of a Section 504 for their ADHD . . . I did the request in writing and they [the school] responded very quickly. I would say it was about six days. We then had our eligibility meeting and went forward from there.
After the eligibility meeting, Jessica reported that they seamlessly developed the Section 504 plan. Some participants reported that not only was the school receptive but also the school was proactive in supporting their child. Elaine reported that the school professionals initiated conversations about the Section 504 plan, “We did not have any barriers. In fact, the school was the one who suggested it [Section 504] and they were very supportive during the process.”
Some participants characterized their child’s educators as supportive. Maria, a mother from Louisiana, reported that her child’s counselor and teachers were responsive and supportive. She stated: I really don’t think we would have been able to get a Section 504 at all had it not been for our counselor and teachers being in our corner . . . The English teacher adored my child and saw how she struggled. She was the one that kind of led the pack in the teacher feedback during that first meeting.
Jessica reported that her child attended a magnet school wherein the teachers were welcoming. Jessica said: I think the teachers that were at the magnet school were a huge reason for being so accommodating. A lot of children are neurodivergent at the school and many of the teachers are very familiar with ADHD and high functioning autism. It really did impact us in a positive way because instead of it becoming a barrier, they really embraced it and they welcomed each individual child as they are.
Administrators and Educators Were Unkind to Students and Families Occluding Access to Section 504
Some participants reported that administrators and educators were unkind and/or disrespectful to students and families. Nicole reported that several school employees bullied her child with ADD and anxiety: There was bullying from the teachers and administrators. We even saw discrimination from the administrators and staff. The other children were not the problem. It was the adults in the school district who are the ones that are supposed to be protecting my child.
Janet, a 43-year-old mother to an 8-year-old with autism and anxiety, reported that her daughter had an accommodation of receiving written class notes. Her daughter asked the teacher to write down something and the teacher responded negatively. Janet stated, “My child told me that when she had asked the teacher for a post it note, the teacher responded saying that ‘Third graders don’t need that sort of thing.’” Some participants reported experiencing disrespect for themselves. Kim, a mother of a 17-year-old son from Colorado, was a teacher in the district her children attended. Yet, she reported that the school professionals treated her poorly when she tried to advocate for her son: I’m a pretty active parent so I get on their [the administration] bad side a lot. They [the administration] roll their eyes at me and say, “Oh, this one again. Does her child really need this or is she just trying to give her son special treatment? She knows how to get her son a Section 504 plan and just wants to make sure that he can take his SAT with time and a half.” This all came from the principal.
Educators Who Did Not Know the Student Had a Section 504 Plan Often Did Not Provide Accommodations
Some participants reported that their children’s educators did not know that their children had Section 504 plans. Lack of knowledge about the student’s Section 504 plan led to the student not receiving needed accommodations. Nicole had a gifted son with a traumatic brain injury and ADHD. She reported that the P.E. teacher did not know about her son’s Section 504 plan. Within the plan, her son had an accommodation excusing him from physical activity. Since being in a car accident, a doctor recommended that her son be excused from physical activity, as it aggravated his brain injury. She stated, “His P.E. coach would call him a crybaby because he’s emotional. Then they [the PE teacher] would make him run.” Janet had a daughter with autism and anxiety. She reported that her daughter’s Section 504 plan allowed her to have sensory tools (e.g., a chewy necklace). She explained: The gym teacher said she [daughter] was “nasty” and took it [necklace] away from her. And I said, “Hey, you know, she has a Section 504 for anxiety and that’s one of her tools.” And the gym teacher said “No—I had no idea.” The school counselor was like ‘Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t tell her [the gym teacher] about the Section 504 plan.
Kristina, an attorney who had a son with ADHD, reported that her son’s teacher did not know about his Section 504 plan (which included preferential seating and extra time). Because his accommodations were not implemented, she reported that her son was receiving failing grades, “The school had not told any of his teachers about the Section 504 plan even existing or the accommodations they were supposed to be providing.”
Educators Did Not Know How to Support Twice-Exceptional Students
Some participants reported that educators did not know how to support students with disabilities who were also gifted. Brandi, a mother with a college degree, reported that teachers may know how to work with students with disabilities or gifted students but when the students were twice-exceptional, they struggled: My child’s teacher had a conversation with us and told us that our child is just defiant. I was like, “No, he’s not defiant. You just do not have the proper training or tools to deal with a child that is intelligent but has behavior issues.”
Jessica reported that teachers struggled to support her son who had disabilities but also was highly intelligent. She stated, “Because of his intelligence, there were teachers that just thought he was a jerk and flippant. In reality, he just wasn’t supported in the classroom because the teachers didn’t want to work with him.”
Discussion
Given the needs of twice-exceptional students, it is important to understand their experiences in accessing supports under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. To that end, this study explored the experiences of families of gifted students with disabilities with accessing Section 504 plans. Overall, there were three key findings. First, system characteristics matter. Many participants reported negative experiences with accessing supports under Section 504 due to poor experiences with administrators and educators. Prior research suggests that many school professionals lack knowledge about Section 504 (e.g., Burke et al., 2016; Madaus & Shaw, 2008). Research is needed to discern whether educating pre-service and in-service professionals about Section 504 could subsequently reduce negative experiences.
Notably, such negative experiences not only stemmed from lack of knowledge but also from disrespectful experiences with administrators and educators. Other research has documented that knowledge and partnership matter. For example, prior research about the importance of partnerships (e.g., family–professional partnerships) has identified two key tenets of relationships: competence and warmth (Fiske et al., 2007). Our study extends prior research suggesting that, for Section 504 to be implemented, educators need to be knowledgeable about Section 504 and demonstrate warmth toward families and students. As a result of this finding, it is important for preparation programs not only to present content about Section 504 but also to contextualize such content by showing how to demonstrate respect toward families and students during the Section 504 process.
Second, individual characteristics (e.g., masking and invisible disabilities) can impede access to Section 504. The concept of masking is not new to the gifted literature (Atmaca & Baloğlu, 2022; Cross et al., 2019) nor is it new to the disability literature (e.g., Goscicki et al., in press). Regarding the latter, the construct of masking their disability is commonly referenced among students with autism (Chapman et al., 2022). While general and special education teachers may take at least one course in special education (which may address masking in autism), they often do not take any courses about giftedness (Madaus & Shaw, 2008). Conversely, a gifted education teacher or specialist often has taken courses about giftedness (e.g., West Keur, 2019) and not special education. Accordingly, teachers may be unfamiliar with masking among twice-exceptional students, thereby occluding student access to Section 504 plans. More research and educator preparation may be needed to explore and educate professionals about masking among twice-exceptional students.
The issue around masking and invisible disabilities raises another important issue in relation to the characterization of disabilities. In special education, disabilities can be categorized in different ways. Per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, the federal special education law), there are 13 disability categories. In pre-service teacher preparation programs, there are commonly three types of licensure programs: high-incidence disabilities, low-incidence disabilities, and early childhood special education (DaFonte et al., 2022). This study suggests a different characterization of disability—its visibility. To that end, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers may consider how the visibility of one’s disability intersects with other characterizations of disability.
Third, family characteristics (i.e., advocacy strategies, lived and professional experiences, social capital) improved access to supports under Section 504. Notably, these characteristics align with prior research traits that promote access to special education services (Trainor, 2010; Yosso, 2005). This finding suggests that such family traits not only improve access to special education support but also improve access to educational support under the auspice of Section 504. Future research may consider disentangling the nature of these supports. For example, research is needed to understand whether lived experience with disability is conflated with having greater advocacy skills (e.g., having more personal experience with disability makes it likely that the parent had more experience with advocacy for themselves, which could translate into better advocacy for their child). Research is needed to consider the intersectionality of family constructs.
Another important point that emerged in this study is the deficit-centric focus on students. Most parents, educators, and others involved with twice-exceptional students tend to focus on their deficits or disabilities and ignore or fail to acknowledge their gifts and talents (Goscicki et al., in press). Indeed, current academic practice has dictated that accommodations are focused on remediation of student deficits (Reis et al., 2014). The absence of training and lack of understanding of educators about how to work with twice-exceptional students contributes to this challenge. Unless teachers have had specific training in gifted and talented practices, they may focus on remediating deficits and not fostering the students’ strengths (Assouline & Foley-Nicpon, 2007; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2013). The emphasis on deficits may extend beyond educators to families (Goscicki et al., in press; Reis et al., 2014). Indeed, families may not know that they can ask the school to provide enrichment opportunities for their student. Parents who have experience with the special education systems or with educational advocacy have an advantage in receiving certain types of special education services, but there is often a lack of knowledge about services for developing their children’s gifts and abilities (Madaus et al., 2022).
Also, research is needed about the relation between formal advocacy strategies and access to Section 504. On one hand, formal advocacy strategies can help families access needed services and support in public schools (Burke et al., 2019). On the other hand, families of children with disabilities who have pursued formal advocacy strategies (e.g., due process, mediation) report significantly greater stress (Burke & Hodapp, 2014). Moving forward, researchers should examine the potential tradeoffs in pursuing formal advocacy strategies.
Limitations
Although this study is an important launching point to understanding access to Section 504 among twice-exceptional students, there are a few limitations. First, this study was cross-sectional. It is possible that experiences with Section 504 may ebb and flow over time; longitudinal research should be conducted to understand experiences with Section 504 over the educational lifespan. Second, this study reflected only a handful of states. While every state must follow Section 504, states often have varying regulations regarding gifted students. In a survey of states conducted by the National Association for Gifted Children (2019), 49 states and the District of Columbia (out of 50 states) have some type of legal requirements pertaining to gifted education. Twenty-nine states, out of 50, have state laws specific to gifted education. While no differences in states were found in this study, it is possible that the state of residence influences access to Section 504; accordingly, more research is needed across the country. Third, this study is limited in its transferability given that most participants were White mothers; future research should include individuals of diverse backgrounds. Specifically, future research should more carefully examine the experiences of participants with varying gender, socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds.
Directions for Future Research
Future research needs to include the perspectives of twice-exceptional students themselves. In alignment with the “nothing about us, without us” rallying cry of the disability rights movement (Charlton, 1998), it is critical to center the perspectives of twice-exceptional students in research. To this end, future researchers may consider interviewing twice-exceptional students about their experiences with Section 504. Within such research, it may be especially important to examine their experiences with self-advocacy. In the broader literature, self-determination and self-advocacy are key traits for individuals with disabilities to improve school and post-school outcomes (Shogren et al., 2017, 2020). Researchers need to explore ways, in accordance with twice-exceptional students, to ensure they are able to advocate for themselves.
Future research also should include an examination of students’ Section 504 plans and the context of the state. Regarding the former, although they can be verbal, Section 504 plans constitute best practice when they are written (DeBettencourt, 2002). To that end, it would be helpful to identify the prevalence of written (vs. verbal) Section 504 plans as well as, of the written plans, the extent to which they reflect best practice. This may be especially valuable for twice-exceptional students to discern whether the plans not only address the student’s disability but also their giftedness. With respect to the latter, future research may triangulate information about the educational context of the state with the interview data. By better characterizing whether the state provides gifted education and related practices, there can be a more holistic understanding of family experiences with extant policies.
Implications for Practice
Practitioners (educators and administrators) need training about the needs of twice-exceptional students, the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and ways to partner with families. Out of 50 states and the District of Columbia, 49 states and Washington, D.C., report providing gifted services to students (National Association for Gifted Children, 2019). Thus, there are many administrators and educators serving gifted students; further, it is likely that they are also serving twice-exceptional students. By providing them with training about the legal requirements to provide needed supports as well as equipping them with skills to be empathetic with twice-exceptional students and their families, there might be fewer issues with accessing Section 504 among students.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Author’s Note
Elizabeth B. Rossi is now affiliated with Middle Tennessee State University.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at Vanderbilt University (approval no. 231820) on December 4, 2023.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The contents of this study were developed under a grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (90DPGE0101). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this poster do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, or HHS, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Open Science Disclosure Statement
The data analyzed in this study are not available for purposes of reproducing the results. The code or protocol used to generate the findings reported in the article is available upon request. There are no other newly created, unique materials used to conduct the research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Artificial Intelligence Use
Zoom’s AI companion was used to generate interview summaries which were reviewed for accuracy by the participants prior to data analysis.