In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Assouline, S. G., Schabilion, K., & Trog, M. (2025). Evolving Educational Legislation Transforms Twice-Exceptional Research and Educational Practice. Gifted Child Today, 49(1), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175251381364 (Original work published 2026)
Abstract
This article describes the historical evolution of U.S. federal education policy as it pertains to the constructs of disability and giftedness, which were originally treated as distinct domains. However, policy shifts and research initiatives revealed the intersection of the two domains, which led to recognition of twice-exceptional individuals as learners with unique needs related to talent development. Evolving definitions and educational practice shaped two decades of research. A case-example highlights the importance of comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations to understand the nuanced educational and social-emotional needs of twice-exceptional learners. Seven recommendations focus on strength-based approaches to educational practice.
From the article (see references in link above):
The preceding discussion highlights our evolving understanding of twice-exceptionality and makes salient the importance of evidence-based approaches to identification and intervention. The following, grounded in more than two decades of research and clinical experience, provide guidelines for practitioners and policymakers that align with the goals of the Javits Act: to increase educational access and talent development for underserved learners.
(1) Conduct comprehensive individual evaluations to reveal both intraindividual (i.e., relative) and interindividual (i.e., absolute or normative) strengths and challenges. Do not rely on interindividual differences as the sole determinant of the presence of a disorder. Reliance on only interindividual differences increases the likelihood of missed or misdiagnosis of twice-exceptional students (Assouline et al., 2010; Maddocks, 2018; Schabilion, 2020). Intraindividual differences can reveal the student’srelative weaknesses in academic performance, which may warrant accommodations and/or interventions to address the challenges.
(2) Recognize that the high likelihood of co-occurring diagnoses among twice-exceptional students may further complicate diagnosis and intervention, as well as research, with these students. Schabilion (2020) found that 60% of her analytic sample of individuals with SLD-WL also had a diagnosis of ADHD, which may have conflated findings regarding psychosocial profiles.
(3) Prioritize domain-specific data when making decisions regarding programming and services, especially talent development opportunities, for twice-exceptional students. Because of the frequent intraindividual variation within twiceexceptional students’ profiles, use of overall composite scores that integrate multiple domains will prevent thorough understanding of twice-exceptional students’ strengths and weaknesses. For example, use of the Full Scale IQ as an eligibility criterion for talent development programs is likely to exclude twice-exceptional students because of their weaknesses in working memory and processing speed (Assouline et al., 2010; Schabilion, 2020).
(4) Thoroughly explore the student’s individual strengths and weaknesses to avoid misattributing the origin of difficulties to attitude or behavior. Often, observed behaviors that adults describe as “laziness” or lack of motivation reflect skill deficits that are overshadowed by strengths (Assouline et al., 2010); yet these deficits require intervention.
(5) Understand the interplay between psychosocial skills and academic achievement and provide supportive learning environments (Doobay et al., 2014).
(6) Consider academic acceleration, including subject and/or whole-grade acceleration, as a talent development intervention for twiceexceptional students. However, as with all acceleration decisions, a child-study team must consider the individual student’s readiness vis` a-vis the diagnosis and domain-specific strengths as well as the learning environment (LeBeau et al., 2025).
(7) Recognize the complex mental health concerns when high cognitive ability and neurodevelopmental diagnoses intersect (Casten et al., 2023).
