Twice Exceptional,Thrice Ignored? Behavioral and Academic Support for GT Emergent Bilinguals With Disabilities

Abstract

This case examines systemic inequities contributing to the behavioral challenges of Gifted and Talented (GT) bilingual students with special needs, often referred to as twice-exceptional (2e) students. It highlights the challenges in identification processes, which disproportionately exclude culturally and linguistically diverse students due to biased assessments. The unmet triple needs of 2e bilingual students—academic potential, disabilities, and linguistic support—often result in alienation and behavioral difficulties. Using the culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL) framework, the case explores equitable identification, tailored interventions, and teacher support strategies. It emphasizes inclusive learning environments where all students can thrive academically and socially.

Keywords

school discipline twice exceptional emergent bilingual gifted and talented student with special needs culturally responsive school leadership

Introduction

Gifted and Talented (GT) education in public schools operates within a complex education system that often reflects and reinforces broader societal inequities. GT programs were conceptualized during the mid-20th century in response to national concerns about global competitiveness, particularly during the Cold War era (Terman, 1925). Since then, scholars have criticized GT programs for perpetuating elitism and failing to equitably identify and serve students from diverse backgrounds, including low-income families and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (Brown, 2016; Ford, 2014). Literature has consistently emphasized that GT students demonstrate exceptional abilities or potential in one or more areas, such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacities, which distinguish them from their peers (Danzak, 2020; Esquierdo & Arreguín-Anderson, 2012; Ford et al., 2008; Lu & Weinberg, 2016). Identification processes frequently rely on standardized assessments, which often include biased content regardless of cultural and linguistic diversity in GT populations, resulting in the underrepresentation of students of color, Emergent Bilinguals (EBs), and those from low-income families (Peters et al., 2019) and the disproportionate enrollment of students from affluent, white backgrounds, further marginalizing underserved populations (Ford, 2014; Lu & Weinberg, 2016; Peters et al., 2019).

EB students in Title I schools face multifaceted challenges regarding participation in GT programs—challenges rooted in sociocultural contexts and educational practices. EB students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, particularly in Title I schools, are underrepresented in GT programs (Esquierdo & Arreguín-Anderson, 2012). Ambiguous assessment practices create barriers for EB students’ access to GT programs (Esquierdo & Arreguín-Anderson, 2012). Teachers’ biases and the need for deeper understanding of and engagement with the cultural and linguistic strengths that EB students bring to the classroom hinder EB students’ access to GT programs (Deniz & Spies, 2021; Pimentel, 2011). In Title I schools, substantial inequalities in educational resources available to Latinx and low-income students—particularly compared to their wealthy White peers—suggest that the lack of financial investment in underserved communities exacerbates the challenge of identifying and nurturing EB GT students (Jiménez-Castellanos, 2010). Even when bilingual education resources are present, systemic funding disparities limit access to quality educational experiences for GT students in Title I schools (Weiss, 2020).

GT students with disabilities—often termed “twice-exceptional” or “2e”—navigate complex educational landscapes. Twice-exceptional students are those who demonstrate high potential in one or more domains, such as academic achievement, creativity, leadership, or the arts, while also experiencing disabilities or exceptional learning needs. These may include learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia or dyscalculia), neurodevelopmental differences (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism spectrum disorder), emotional or behavioral difficulties, mental health challenges (e.g., anxiety or depression), or other factors that impact their educational experiences (Reis et al., 2014). This intersection leads to exceptionalities masking one another—giftedness can obscure disabilities, and disabilities can overshadow strengths—leading to underidentification, misdiagnosis, and inadequate support in schools (Baum et al., 2017; Lee, 2019). Many schools do not have the resources or expertise to provide specialized strategies that address both the abilities and the disabilities of these students (Understood, n.d.). Twice-exceptional students may express their unmet academic and emotional needs through frustration, anxiety, or disengagement (Ronksley-Pavia, 2015), leading to disciplinary responses that may compound their exclusion from learning environments (Montgomery, 2009).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) and the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) provide frameworks for equitable access by outlining federal protections and promoting inclusion, but they also inadvertently undermine the dual needs of 2e students because neither policy meaningfully addresses how giftedness and disability intersect in practice (National Association for Gifted Children, n.d.). For example, IDEA focuses primarily on remediation and disability-related services, while the Javits program centers on talent development—leaving schools without clear guidance on integrating both areas for students who require simultaneous support. These parallel systems fail to communicate with one another, leading to fragmented services for 2e learners. Funding disparities and inconsistent state-level policies leave schools without adequate resources to support specialized programs for GT and 2e students (Gallagher, 2015; Plucker & Callahan, 2020). These systemic inequities are especially impactful among Black and Latinx students, who are underrepresented in GT programs but overrepresented in special education, highlighting the intersectionality of race, socioeconomic status, and disability in shaping educational outcomes (Ford et al., 2008). Moreover, teachers’ interpretations of behavioral expressions impact how 2e students are supported academically and socially (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2013; Lee, 2019).

Addressing these challenges requires an intersectional and multifaceted approach. Schools must ensure equitable identification processes and professional development and equip educators with the skills to recognize and support 2e students effectively. Allocating resources to develop inclusive and responsive programs is critical to addressing the unique needs of 2e students. By acknowledging the contexts of GT education, educational leaders and stakeholders can work toward a more equitable and inclusive system that provides opportunities for all students to thrive (Lee, 2019; Peters et al., 2019; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015). This case offers insight into how leaders and teachers can better address the complex needs of EB GT students with disabilities in elementary schools.

Case Narrative

LBJ Elementary School

LBJ Elementary School, located in a Title I school district in a low-income urban area near the Mexico-US border, offers instructional programs including bilingual education, GT Education, Special Education (SPED), and pre-kindergarten for 3- and 4-year-olds. Its GT program has faced resource shortages for decades. The school serves 500 students, with over 83% qualifying for free or reduced lunch, 97% identifying as Latinx, 75% identifying as EB, 10% as identifying as students with disabilities, and only 2% enrolled in the GT program. By comparison, the district population is composed of 71% students eligible for free or reduced lunch, 82% Latinx students, 33% EB, and 10% students with disabilities. In terms of staff, 90.3% of the teacher population is Latinx, 3.3% White, and 6.4% Asian. At LBJ Elementary, some teachers expressed their concerns about the school not providing services to GT students, as the school’s limited resources and attention are primarily directed toward general education.

The Principal: Veronica Estrada

Veronica Estrada has been an educator for 19 years and has worked extensively with EB students. She has served as principal of LBJ Elementary School for 7 years. With a career focused on SPED, she is committed to fostering and supporting diversity within the GT population. The school’s GT program identifies students based on standardized test scores and parent and teacher referrals; however, the identification process is potentially biased, as many low-income and EB students are underrepresented. The majority of students in the GT program are white males.

Principal Estrada is determined to ensure that GT students achieve equitable access to higher academic opportunities. She plans to reform the identification process for GT students to increase participation among low-income and EB students. To achieve this goal, she has provided professional development training for teachers to help them recognize the characteristics of GT students. She also ensured that her teachers accumulated the required hours of training to become certified to provide equitable services to the GT student population. Principal Estrada began her reform efforts by sending out emails to schedule a faculty meeting to discuss the campus vision for the GT program and outline the next steps for improvement.

A GT Student: Santiago

Santiago, a second-grade student, has been exhibiting expressions of unmet needs—often labeled as “behavioral challenges” by his teachers—since kindergarten. He underwent testing for the GT program and qualified for GT services in first grade. He was placed in a first-grade homeroom class with other students classified as GT. He did not receive GT services in kindergarten.

In first grade, Santiago had a history of not completing his classwork and demonstrating behaviors that reflected difficulty with self-regulation and peer interaction, including fighting with peers and throwing materials in the classroom. Teachers labeled his resistance to authority, potentially rooted in unmet learning or emotional needs, as defiant behaviors. In second grade, Ms Hernández, Santiago’s second-grade teacher, reports that Santiago demonstrates a rebellious attitude toward adults, persistently throws classroom items, and disrupts his peers. These disruptions have affected the teacher’s ability to provide instruction, leading to incomplete assessments of his learning progress during the first nine weeks of the school year due to incomplete assignments. Although his disruptive behavior and task avoidance persist, Santiago actively engages in hands-on laboratory activities. Science has become the subject in which he consistently demonstrates higher-order thinking skills. There were no mentions of Santiago’s higher-order thinking skills prior to second grade. Teachers primarily attended to his behavioral expressions, overlooking his emerging signs of higher-order thinking. Santiago communicates effectively in Spanish, his home language. He has not been placed in a dual-language program. Ms Hernández is not a certified bilingual teacher, but can communicate in Spanish.

Santiago’s Mother’s Concerns

Santiago’s mother works two jobs to support the household, while his father, recovering from a work-related injury, receives support through the Supplemental Security Income program. Santiago’s family demonstrates resilience in the face of economic and health-related hardship. At home, Santiago plays an important role by using his bilingual skills to help his parents navigate English-speaking environments. Santiago’s mother informed Ms Hernández about his ongoing emotional and behavioral expressions, which she has recognized since kindergarten as signs of his struggle to have his needs met. She has been trying to seek help for Santiago, but has been unable to secure a doctor’s appointment due to long waiting times with specialists. She feels Ms Hernández is not providing adequate support to de-escalate the conflicts Santiago faces in class, leaving him without help:

“Sra. Hernández, ¿puede usar las observaciones de Santiago en el salón, en vez de sus calificaciones?” Mom asked.

“Sra. entiendo sus preocupaciones y he estado trabajando con la administración para brindarle a Santiago la ayuda necesaria y hacer lo posible para que esto suceda,” responded Ms. Hernández.¹

Santiago’s mother expresses her concerns about his academic evaluations. She believes her son is learning the material and should not be failing. To address Santiago’s behavioral challenges,² Ms. Hernández has requested three official meetings with the administration and school counselors over the past 10 weeks. During these meetings, a behavior chart was implemented, and the district provided a medical diagnosis form, which was given to Santiago’s mother to share with his primary doctor. At the most recent meeting, Santiago’s mother expressed frustration and concern about the school’s lack of academic support and resources. She worries that Santiago’s challenges are being poorly evaluated and unjustifiably overlooked:

Desde que Santiago estaba en kínder, he estado abogando para que reciba la ayuda que necesita. Es un niño bueno e inteligente. Solo necesita comprensión, no castigos por parte de la escuela. Si fuera otro estudiante—quizás uno que no tuviera que enfrentar desafíos constantes—¿los maestros lo etiquetarían de inmediato como una distracción? ¿Por qué les cuesta tanto a los maestros notar sus avances y el progreso que ha tenido en su aprendizaje durante la clase?³

A GT growth plan was developed to track Santiago’s progress. Santiago’s mother requested that he not be removed from the GT program and asked for accommodations in the classroom to help him complete assignments and avoid failing grades. She requested that any incomplete assignments be sent home and that Santiago not be penalized if completed at home. Santiago’s mother has repeatedly requested that her son be evaluated based on his understanding and effort, not just his grades. “He understands the coursework. I see him at home explaining it to me,” she insisted, advocating for more evaluation to be placed on classroom observations and informal assessments.

When addressing Santiago’s misbehavior, his mother expressed, “a Santiago lo están molestando; le están haciendo ‘bullying’ en clase,”⁴ which she believes contributes to his behavior. Santiago’s mother said Santiago has been picked on and laughed at by other classmates when he gets in trouble or expresses his opinion during class. Santiago’s mother believes that these types of bullying contribute to Santiago’s emotional distress and behavioral expressions, and she regularly urges school leadership to consider resolving them.

Meanwhile, Ms. Hernández has requested instructional support from the school, as she is struggling to manage her 25 other students and complete lessons due to continuous interruptions caused by Santiago’s behavior. These interruptions have also led to misbehavior from other students. The teacher finds it challenging to balance daily documentation with her other teaching responsibilities, feeling that the ongoing issues negatively impact the classroom environment. Ms. Hernández emphasized, “When Santiago starts disrupting the class, other students follow, causing me to lose control of the whole class.” She also recognizes the support that Santiago needs during class, stating, “I truly want to help Santiago, but I feel like I am on my own during challenging moments.”

This complex situation highlights the intersection of giftedness, behavioral and emotional challenges, institutional barriers, and systemic inequities that students like Santiago must navigate. This case centers on the lived realities of 2e students, especially 2e students from linguistically and economically marginalized backgrounds, whose dual exceptionalities require multidimensional support systems across academic, behavioral, and social domains.

Faculty Reflections on GT and 2e Student Needs

Before the PLC meeting officially began, teachers started discussing their concerns informally as Principal Estrada listened and encouraged them to share candid reflections. During a weekly Professional Learning Committee (PLC) meeting, Ms. Hernández brought up the issue of behavioral and academic needs for 2e students. The conversation ignited a space for collective reflections on how giftedness intersects with behavioral/emotional development in classrooms.

Mr. Wood, a white, monolingual fifth-grade teacher with 22 years of experience at LBJ Elementary, emphasized that gifted students need adequate challenges to stay engaged with the material:

When these kids aren’t challenged, they tend to stop trying—and that’s when behavioral problems start to manifest. They lose interest and immediately start disrupting class, not because they’re bad students but because they’re not receiving personalized support. These students need appropriate challenges to avoid becoming frustrated, which may lead to disruptive behavior in class.

Mr. Wood also leads the school’s robotics club, specifically designed for GT students. He emphasized that, without advanced and creative tasks, GT students struggle to exercise their full potential freely and safely in class. GT students need spaces that allow them to be inquisitive, solve problems, and explore while developing collaborative learning skills. If they are not given those opportunities, their energy gets misdirected, causing them to be misunderstood.

The discussion expanded to address the social-emotional needs of GT students. Mr. Wood noted, “GT students act out with disruptive behavior because they are bored or frustrated.” Mrs. Williams, a third-grade teacher with 8 years of experience at LBJ, agreed and added:

The classroom environment and teaching methods could also influence student behavior. We need to start thinking about how our teaching methods either support or hinder students with distinct learning profiles. Classrooms that are not adept at fostering an inclusive environment, where students do not feel supported, can significantly impact their behavior in class.

She further pointed out that a teacher’s methods failing to accommodate diverse learning styles or provide adequate support could exacerbate behavioral issues.

Mr. Mesa, a fourth-grade dual-language teacher with 15 years of teaching experience, suggested:

What we’re seeing as disruptive behavior might actually be linked to things like ADHD, anxiety, or emotional overwhelm—things that aren’t about kids’ giftedness but are still very real. Both can exist in the same student, and that doesn’t make them any less gifted. It just means we need to provide more support [in] more than one area. And we can’t diagnose students with any medical condition, but we can observe, document, and communicate any discrepancies and needs to the administration.

Mr. Mesa also mentioned, “This is part of our responsibility—to advocate for all of our students daily, in ways that go beyond a regular observation.” While acknowledging that no one on the faculty is a medical professional qualified to make a diagnosis, Mr. Mesa noted that their teaching experience enables them to communicate observations that might warrant further evaluation.

As the dialogue unfolded, faculty members pointed out the complexities of supporting students navigating both advanced abilities and additional learning or emotional needs during class. While listening, Ms. Hernández found herself reflecting on Santiago’s daily struggles, feeling both validated by colleagues’ insights and increasingly anxious about whether she had the tools and support needed to meet his dual exceptionalities. The faculty was receptive and demonstrated interest in training, resources, and systemic support to meet the diverse needs of gifted students—specifically 2e students with diverse backgrounds who are challenging to identify and serve. As faculty members voiced their opinions, Principal Estrada considered ways to reallocate the school budget to invest in resources and training, thereby supporting teachers. At that point, Principal Estrada was strategizing for practical and productive interventions that would facilitate the allocation.

Teacher Concerns

Teachers informed the principal that they needed more time to complete the paperwork related to behavioral issues and felt it was not their responsibility to provide social-emotional support. Teachers felt frustrated and overwhelmed by the heavy workload and the additional time they dedicated to morning and after-school tutoring. Teachers expressed that they already provided instructional support for reading and math during classroom intervention and did not want to do more unless some of their responsibilities were redistributed to other staff members.

Some teachers shared that they rely heavily on peer tutors and paraprofessionals to support students with disabilities and EB students during literacy blocks; however, they often feel underprepared to effectively differentiate lessons. Ms. Delgado, a second-grade teacher, explained that she uses visual aids and sentence stems to support EB students during science lessons, but struggles when multiple students require one-on-one language support at the same time. “I try to pair EB students with bilingual peers, but it’s not a sustainable strategy for core instruction,” she admitted. Meanwhile, Mr. Thompson, a fifth-grade SPED inclusion teacher, shared that he co-teaches math lessons but often ends up pulling students aside to reteach foundational skills using manipulatives or simplified language, which takes time away from the rest of the class.

While many teachers voiced frustration, not all shared the same perspective. A few teachers, including Ms. Moreno, a bilingual first-grade teacher, raised concerns about equity, emphasizing that EB and SPED students are often treated as afterthoughts in campus-wide planning: “We focus a lot on who’s testing well or who’s creating disruptions, but what about the quiet EB students who are falling behind because they don’t have enough linguistic support?” Her comments were met with a mix of head nods and silence. Others, like Mr. Garcia, a third-grade teacher, questioned the school’s prioritization of the GT program altogether. “It feels like we’re putting a spotlight on GT while everyone else is left in the shadows,” he said. “We need more instructional aides and bilingual support, not more meetings about giftedness.” Several teachers agreed, citing a lack of consistent interventionists and substitutes, which often leaves teachers covering classes or missing planning periods.

The teachers emphasized the need to address gaps in support for students with disabilities and EB students. They noted the common misconception that GT students do not require extra support, explaining that GT students are often grouped with peers who require academic support, which may not provide the enrichment they need. Despite their placement and lack of tailored support, GT students are still held to high expectations for success.

Some teachers critiqued the professional development (PD) offered at the school. Multiple staff members noted that recent PD sessions focused on general GT characteristics but did not offer concrete strategies for addressing the needs of 2e students or those from linguistically diverse backgrounds. “The training felt too surface-level,” Ms. Mesa remarked. Other teachers expressed frustration that sessions often lacked follow-up or opportunities for application, leaving them feeling unsupported in making meaningful instructional changes.

Budget constraints further complicate these concerns. Principal Estrada has attempted to provide more GT training and hire additional support staff, but limited funds have prevented full implementation. Teachers are aware of the resource limitations, yet some question whether the principal’s allocation of funding aligns with the school’s most urgent needs. “I understand the vision, but we need to talk about survival,” said Mr. Thompson. “Without classroom support, all students—including GT—suffer.” This situation caused the principal to reassess whether she made the right decision to prioritize the GT program; however, she remains committed to shifting the perspectives of her teachers toward recognizing that GT and 2e students—especially EB learners—require both enrichment and specialized support, rather than assuming that giftedness cancels out the need for behavioral, linguistic, or social-emotional interventions. She is now considering what strategies she can use to achieve this goal.

Teaching Notes

GT programs struggle to equitably serve EBs, particularly 2e students, due to systemic biases. The misidentification or exclusion of 2e students from gifted programs can be attributed to multiple phenomena, including standardized testing, which overlooks cultural and linguistic diversity, and misinterpreted emotional and behavioral expressions, often seen as defiance rather than a manifestation of frustration related to unmet educational needs (Ford, 2014; Peters et al., 2019; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015). For instance, an EB 2e student may refuse to participate in discussions, which teachers interpret as defiance, but the student may be experiencing anxiety due to underlying stress, boredom, lack of motivation, or frustration. These intersecting factors—language acquisition, cognitive processing, emotional regulation, and behavioral expression—may not conform to traditional indicators of giftedness, complicating how these students’ needs are recognized and met. For 2e students, anxiety and social difficulties can arise from the challenge of meeting high academic expectations while also managing their disabilities. These dual pressures often hinder their ability to fully engage with and showcase their strengths (Assouline et al., 2006). Misunderstandings can further alienate EB 2e students by continuously labeling expressions of unmet needs as behavioral challenges, subjecting them to marginalizing practices (Foley-Nicpon, Rickels, et al., 2012; Ford et al., 2008; Montgomery, 2009; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015). Addressing these systemic inequalities can help educators better understand and support 2e students in meeting their educational needs and achieving their full potential.

Redesigning the Identification Process for Equity

To effectively support 2e students in dealing with unmet educational needs, integrating equitable and supportive strategies may help mitigate biased content. Standardized tests, which are commonly used for GT identification, fail to account for cultural and linguistic diversity (Khalifa et al., 2016). This often leads to the underrepresentation of EB and 2e learners in GT programs (Ford, 2014; Peters et al., 2019). School leaders must redesign the identification process by incorporating multiple measures to address this. A universal screening approach may facilitate a multifaceted identification process, including teacher observations, parent referrals, and performance-based assessments, challenging traditional assessment methods (Plucker & Callahan, 2020). For instance, an EB 2e student struggling with written tests due to language or processing difficulties may better demonstrate giftedness through project-based assessments or portfolios. Multifaceted approaches better capture diverse talents, ensuring equitable access to GT programs.

Culturally Responsive and Inclusive Interventions for 2e EB Students

EB GT students with exceptional learning needs—whether diagnosed disabilities, emotional challenges, or other neurodevelopmental differences—experience disciplinary actions for misbehavior that stems from unmet academic, linguistic, and social-emotional needs. Khalifa et al.’s (2016) exploration of Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) practices underscores the importance of interventions that address both the behavior and its underlying causes. The implementation of CRSL practices in academic settings exemplifies culturally responsive measures via primary strands of leadership, including critical self-reflection (serving as a critical-thinking opportunity for school leaders to reflect on their student-centered practices) and implementing an engaging community context (school leaders having the opportunity to not only create spaces for the students but also for the families to share community-based issues and specific needs for their children; Khalifa et al., 2016; Reis et al., 2014). A core component of CRSL involves equipping educators with the knowledge and tools to recognize how giftedness, bilingualism, and disability intersect for 2e EB students. A CRSL-aligned practice to address the needs of 2e bilingual students involves integrating targeted professional development, culturally responsive, positive-reinforcement systems, differentiated instruction grounded in students’ linguistic and cognitive profiles, and structured learning environments that reduce behavioral triggers and promote belonging. These strategies reflect CRSL’s emphasis on building teachers’ critical self-awareness and supporting student-centered, asset-based approaches (Khalifa et al., 2016), and align with 2e scholarship that highlights the importance of simultaneously nurturing strengths while accommodating diverse learning and behavioral needs (Assouline et al., 2012; Reis et al., 2014). By explicitly linking CRSL practices with evidence-based 2e interventions, leaders and teachers can better identify students’ unique strengths and challenges while responding to behavioral expressions as signals of unmet academic, linguistic, or social-emotional needs rather than as defiance. In addition, integrating social-emotional learning (SEL) and response-to-intervention (RTI) strategies can enhance self-regulation in response to behavioral issues, improve peer relationships, and address unique strengths and needs among 2e bilingual students (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2013; Montgomery, 2009). Fostering differentiated instructional practices and behavioral management strategies creates inclusive environments for EB 2e students.

Advocating for culturally equitable policies is critical in addressing systemic inequities and behavioral issues faced by 2e bilingual students. School leaders can advocate for instructional aides, bilingual teacher training, and inclusive GT curricula that reflect the diverse needs of the student population. Policies prioritizing equity in GT identification and programming can help ensure that all students, regardless of background or exceptionalities, have the resources they need to succeed. Leadership paradigms must challenge deficit-based thinking models and promote interventions—such as linguistic-centered programs and supportive learning communities—that build student confidence by meeting their educational and emotional needs, further addressing the underlying causes of behaviors triggered by unmet needs (Khalifa et al., 2016; Trail, 2011). These interventions align specifically with the needs of 2e students by providing tailored linguistic and socioemotional support, addressing the intersection of language acquisition and disability, and creating environments where students feel valued rather than marginalized. It is also critical for leadership structures to support educators in their roles by addressing workload concerns through facilitating instructional aides, streamlining documentation processes, and allocating resources for academic and behavioral practices (Ford, 2014). Understanding how GT students display academic strengths and behavioral discrepancies through profile differences and educational accommodations is essential for accurate pinpointing practices (Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Stinson, 2012a). By fostering student-centered policies, schools can meet diverse student needs and support educators effectively.

Creating Inclusive Learning Environments Through Universal Design (UDL)

Leaders must promote practices affirming students’ cultural and linguistic identities (Khalifa et al., 2016). For EB GT students with diverse exceptionalities—including learning, behavioral, emotional, or sensory differences—creating peer-mentoring programs or bilingual classrooms that affirm cultural and linguistic identities supports academic achievement, belonging, and emotional well-being. Prioritizing individualized support fosters an inclusive learning environment, which is essential for addressing the underlying causes of behaviors triggered by unmet needs. Implementing CRSL and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) frameworks significantly improves inclusive measures and mitigates behavioral issues. CRSL emphasizes equity and cultural responsiveness, creating student-centered environments tailored for 2e students (Khalifa et al., 2016). Leveraging resources to facilitate 2e students challenges exclusionary practices. CRSL cultivates critical consciousness, elevating student identities within classrooms. This pairs well with UDL, which is an educational framework that guides the design of flexible learning environments to accommodate the diverse needs of all students. It emphasizes multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression to ensure equitable access to learning opportunities. UDL facilitates individualized education plans and SEL strategies, providing coping mechanisms to address the underlying causes of behaviors triggered by unmet needs. Individualized education plans and social aspects of the academic experience can personalize learning frameworks for 2e students, enabling educators to recognize and address students’ learning behaviors, cultural backgrounds, and language thresholds that impact their progress and acclimation to a regular academic environment. The principles and guidelines that UDL provides to educators build a foundation for anticipating potential cultural and systemic challenges that have been identified in the past, resulting in equitable frameworks and persistent advocacy measures that may well benefit 2e students. Holistic approaches of this magnitude not only help 2e bilingual students in need of equitable interventions but also cultivate a supportive atmosphere where all learners can benefit.

Strengths-Based Approaches to Supporting 2e EB Students

The strengths-based approach to addressing the needs of students served under special education services emphasizes the importance of recognizing and leveraging the inherent strengths and resources of 2e students to promote positive educational outcomes (Farmer et al., 2005; Lappalainen et al., 2009; Thomas, 2017). The conversation about recognizing EB 2e students’ bilingual abilities as strengths rather than obstacles (Cheatham & Barnett, 2016) opens new avenues for engagement in EB 2e students’ learning processes, reinforcing the notion that leveraging cultural and linguistic resources can enhance educational success. This perspective challenges traditional deficit-oriented models, which often focus on students’ limitations rather than their capabilities, providing a framework for more effective and holistic educational practices. A strength-based lens on EB 2e students shifts the focus from what students cannot do to what they can do, paving the way for more effective educational strategies that positively impact EB 2e students’ social and academic development.

Addressing the underlying causes of behaviors triggered by unmet needs faced by 2e bilingual students is essential for building a sustainable GT-focused framework. Behavioral issues among 2e students often arise due to unmet academic expectations and the stress of navigating their exceptionalities, leading to behaviors that are misunderstood when learning environments lack the preparation or flexibility to meet their diverse needs. Implementing flexible strategies, equitable screening processes, and professional development for educators, as well as integrating social-emotional learning into the curriculum, can create culturally responsive environments that recognize and celebrate the individuality of 2e bilingual students. Ultimately, institutions are most successful when they cultivate an inclusive learning atmosphere, enabling all students to benefit and thrive.

Discussion Questions

What strategies can LBJ teachers and Principal Estrada engage in to address the underlying causes of behaviors of GT students, particularly when these behaviors stem from unmet academic and emotional needs?

How can Principal Estrada effectively address teacher concerns about workload and their perceived responsibilities for providing social-emotional support while fostering an inclusive GT program?

What role does Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) play in creating an equitable GT program that supports the diverse needs of students and fosters teacher buy-in?

How can school leaders and teachers engage families, particularly those from underserved backgrounds, to collaboratively support GT students facing academic, behavioral, and emotional challenges?

What policy changes or resource reallocation strategies could be implemented to ensure that all students, including those in GT programs, receive adequate academic and behavioral support?

Class Activities

Case Analysis and Root Cause Exploration

You are part of a task force assembled by Principal Estrada to analyze the systemic barriers and institutional practices that contribute to the underrepresentation of EB and low-income students in the GT program. Working with your small group, identify the possible underlying causes of Santiago’s behavioral and emotional expressions of unmet needs, considering factors such as bias in the GT identification process, inadequate social-emotional support, and the impact of teacher workload on student outcomes. Have each group present their findings and propose evidence-based interventions to address these challenges, fostering a deeper understanding of the intersectionality between race, socioeconomic status, and exceptionalities.

Collaborative Role-Playing

After identifying key stakeholders and their roles, such as the principal, GT coordinator, classroom teachers, counselors, and parents, work with your team members to develop a comprehensive action plan for addressing Santiago’s academic and behavioral needs while ensuring equitable support for other GT students. Practice empathetic communication, collaborative decision-making, and culturally responsive strategies while exploring the dynamics of stakeholder engagement in creating an inclusive school environment.

Policy Review and Revision

Review your school’s current GT identification and support policies, focusing on identifying biases and gaps that may limit equitable access for 2e EB students. Working in groups, propose specific revisions or new policy language that reduces bias, strengthens culturally responsive practices, and improves support systems for diverse gifted learners. Then outline possible steps for implementing these revised policies in ways that are feasible and equity-centered.

Teacher Support and Resource Planning

Work with your peers to develop a teacher support system that addresses both instructional and emotional needs in classrooms with diverse learners, including GT and 2e students. Brainstorm strategies to manage workloads, such as utilizing instructional aides, integrating social-emotional learning practices, and accessing district-level resources. Then, outline a professional development plan for teachers, focusing on topics such as culturally responsive teaching, differentiated instruction, and strategies for addressing the underlying causes of behaviors triggered by unmet needs. How do teachers balance responsibilities while fostering a positive and equitable learning environment?

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Wei-Ling Sun

Oscar Robles

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Wei-Ling Sun, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Education Leadership and Foundations, College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso.

Priscilla F. Chavez Graduate Student, Department of Education Leadership and Foundations, College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso.

Ruth Arzola Graduate Student, Department of Education Leadership and Foundations, College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso.

Viviana Favela Graduate Student, Department of Education Leadership and Foundations, College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso.

Azusena Huizar, M. ED. Graduate Student, Department of Education Leadership and Foundations, College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso.

Oscar Robles, M. ED. Doctoral Student, Department of Education Leadership and Foundations, College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso.

References

Assouline

S. G.

Foley-Nicpon

Dockery

(2012). Predicting the academic achievement of gifted students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(9), 1781–1789.

Assouline

S. G.

Foley-Nicpon

Huber

D. H.

(2006). The impact of vulnerabilities and strengths on the academic experiences of twice-exceptional students: A message to school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 10(1), 14–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5330/prsc.10.1.y0677616t5j15511

Baum

S. M.

Schader

R. M.

Hébert

T. P.

(2017). Twice-exceptional and special populations of gifted students. Springer.

Brown

E. F.

(2016). Equity and excellence: Political forces in the education of gifted students. Gifted Education Review, 8(1), 101–112.

Cheatham

G. A.

Barnett

J. E. H.

(2016). Overcoming common misunderstandings about students with disabilities who are English language learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216644819

Danzak

R. L.

(2020). Bilingual gifted and talented students’ expository writing: Exploring academic language features in English and Spanish. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220956729

Deniz

F. K.

Spies

T. G.

(2021). Using funds of knowledge to identify gifts and talents: The role of home visits. The CATESOL Journal, 32(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.5070/b5.35917

Esquierdo

J. J.

Arreguín-Anderson

M. G.

(2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211432041

Farmer

T. W.

Clemmer

J. T.

Leung

M.-C.

Goforth

J. B.

Thompson

J. H.

Keagy

Boucher

(2005). Strength-based assessment of rural African American early adolescents: Characteristics of students in high and low groups on the behavioral and emotional rating scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-1113-0

10.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

(2013). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490021

11.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

Stinson

R. D.

(2012). Cognitive and academic distinctions between gifted students with autism and Asperger syndrome. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211433199

12.

Foley-Nicpon

Rickels

Assouline

S. G.

Richards

(2012). Self-esteem and self-concept examination among gifted students with ADHD. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212451735

13.

Ford

D. Y.

(2014). Multicultural gifted education: Rationale, models, strategies, and resources. Gifted Child Today, 37(2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513497576

14.

Ford

D. Y.

Grantham

T. C.

Whiting

G. W.

(2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302

15.

Gallagher

J. J.

(2015). Political issues in gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214565546

16.

Jiménez-Castellanos

. (2010). Relationship between educational resources and school achievement: A mixed method intra-district analysis. The Urban Review, 42(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-010-0166-6

17.

Khalifa

M. A.

Gooden

M. A.

Davis

J. E.

(2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.

18.

Lappalainen

Savolainen

Kuorelahti

Epstein

M. H.

(2009). An international assessment of the emotional and behavioral strengths of youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(6), 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9287-5

19.

Lee

(2019). Meeting the challenge of twice-exceptional students. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/meeting-challenge-twice-exceptional-students

20.

Weinberg

S. L.

(2016). Public pre-k and test taking for the NYC gifted-and-talented programs. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x16633441

21.

Montgomery

(2009). Able, gifted and talented underachievers. John Wiley.

22.

National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Twice-exceptional (2e) students. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/twice-exceptional-students

23.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

Mann

R. L.

(2019). Addressing inequities in access to gifted education: A nationwide analysis of state policies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 144–164.

24.

Pimentel

(2011). The color of language: The racialized educational trajectory of an emerging bilingual student. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(4), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2011.605686

25.

Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(2020). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (3rd ed.). Routledge.

26.

Reis

S. M.

Baum

S. M.

Burke

(2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534976

27.

Ronksley-Pavia

(2015). Identifying twice-exceptional students: Guidelines for school districts. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 24(2), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2015.0012

28.

Terman

L. M.

(1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford University Press.

29.

Thomas

M. A. M.

(2017). “Good intentions can only get you so far”: Critical reflections from Teach for America corps members placed in special education. Education and Urban Society, 50(5), 435–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517713604

30.

Trail

B. A.

(2011). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students. Prufrock Press, Inc.

31.

Understood. (n.d.). All about twice-exceptional students. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/all-about-twice-exceptional-students

32.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/idea

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented students education program. https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-birth-grade-12/well-rounded-education-grants/jacob-k-javits-gifted-and-talented-students-education-program

34.

Weiss

(2020). School funding inequalities in the Texas panhandle related to the racial, socio-economic, and linguistic composition of school districts. Journal of Education Finance, 46(1), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.2020.a784645