Gifted but Overlooked: Rethinking Evaluation for 2e Students

In the world of educational assessments, there’s a long-standing reverence for the IQ score (Ritchie, 2015). Intelligence has often been seen as the gold standard for predicting academic success (Ren et al., 2015). However, in the case of twice-exceptional (2e) children—those with high IQs but significant learning disabilities—this traditional view can be misleading, especially when it comes to early education (grades K-6) (Gilman et al., 2013).

The Limits of IQ and the Role of Plasticity

IQ tests are designed to measure cognitive potential, but they often miss the nuances of real-world functioning and classroom performance (Ganuthula & Sinha, 2019). Language skills, for example, are incredibly plastic in young children. That means with the right interventions, support, and instruction, children can dramatically improve these skills over time (Snowling & Hulme, 2012). This neuroplasticity underscores the importance of looking beyond IQ and considering how children actually function in the classroom (Martin, Ketchabaw, & Turkeltaub, 2022).

High-IQ children with deficits in reading, writing, or pragmatic language often slip through the cracks in early grades. They may appear to be doing fine because they are able to compensate with their intelligence. They find ways to avoid tasks that are difficult, such as reading aloud or writing in detail, and instead rely on verbal strengths or conceptual thinking. But this compensation strategy only works up to a point (Silverman, 2009).

The Wall: When Compensation Fails

Around the third or fourth grade, the academic demands shift. Students are expected to “read to learn” rather than “learn to read” (Schugar & Dreher, 2017). Writing becomes more complex, requiring structure, clarity, and coherence. Pragmatic language skills become essential for group work, class discussions, and social interaction. This is when the gaps in foundational skills become glaringly apparent.

For 2e kids, this is often the point of crisis. Suddenly, the strategies that once masked their deficits no longer work. They can’t keep up with the reading load, their writing lacks organization, and their social communication falters. The child who was once seen as “gifted but quirky” is now labeled as underachieving or defiant.

The Need for Explicit Instruction

These children don’t need higher expectations; they need different supports. High IQ does not exempt them from the need for explicit instruction in reading, writing, and social communication (Stuebing et al., 2009). In fact, their cognitive strengths can sometimes obscure their true needs, leading to delayed diagnosis and intervention.

Evaluations should go beyond traditional learning disability (LD) or neuropsychological assessment batteries in order to capture a complete and accurate understanding of a student’s abilities. This means conducting thorough, high-quality Speech Language Pathologist (SLP)-led assessments that focus specifically on language and literacy skills. These evaluations should not only measure performance in isolated tasks but also assess how students use language and literacy in real-world, functional contexts (Elleseff, 2024).

It is especially important to gain insight into the student’s discourse-level language skills, as well as their reading and writing abilities at grade level (Shanahan, 2006). A detailed understanding of these areas can significantly aid educators, clinicians, and parents in identifying the root causes of academic and social difficulties. Such comprehensive information allows for more targeted interventions and support, ultimately helping students succeed in both school and everyday communication.

A Call to Action

Educators, psychologists, and parents must broaden their understanding of what drives long-term student success. Intelligence, while important, is not a cure-all—it is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. As emphasized in the work of Lleras (2008), noncognitive factors such as motivation, work habits, self-control, and especially social skills play a pivotal role in shaping educational attainment and future earnings. These skills often make the difference between potential that is realized and potential that is left untapped.

Social skills—such as perspective taking, cooperation, and the ability to navigate interpersonal dynamics—are critical not only in academic settings but also in determining success in the workplace and broader society. They influence classroom participation, peer relationships, collaboration in group tasks, and ultimately, how well individuals function in adult roles that require teamwork, leadership, and adaptability (Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2015).

For twice-exceptional students—those who are both gifted and have learning differences—social skills can be an especially crucial area of development. Despite high cognitive abilities, many of these students struggle with social interactions due to asynchronous development or challenges related to their disabilities. Without intentional support in this area, these students may experience social isolation, increased anxiety, and missed opportunities, all of which can impede academic performance and future career success (National Education Association, 2006).

To be truly effective, evaluation and support must reach beyond intelligence and grades to address the social, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of a student’s experience. Intelligence alone does not define a child’s potential (Åsberg Johnels et al., 2021). To support meaningful growth and long-term success, we must engage in sensitive, nuanced assessment that captures the full range of skills influencing how students learn, connect with others, and navigate real-world challenges. This means recognizing not just what a student knows, but how they think, communicate, manage emotions, and build relationships—insights that are essential for truly responsive support and intervention. Supporting twice-exceptional students means developing not only their intellectual strengths but also their social competence, emotional resilience, and capacity to thrive in collaborative environments (King, 2005).

By prioritizing real-world classroom functioning, tapping into the brain’s capacity for growth—especially in language and communication—and providing explicit, skill-based instruction, we can empower twice-exceptional (2e) children not just to survive but to truly thrive. This approach must include intentional support for developing social skills, which are critical for navigating academic settings and building meaningful peer relationships.

Success for 2e students depends on more than high cognitive ability; it hinges on how well we understand and support their full developmental profile, including their emotional, behavioral, and social needs (Gierczyk & Hornby, 2021). It starts with looking beyond the IQ score and seeing the whole child: a learner with strengths, challenges, and immense potential that can be unlocked with the right environment and guidance.

References:

1. Åsberg Johnels, J., Yngvesson, P., Billstedt, E., Gillberg, C., Halldner, L., Råstam, M., Gustafsson, P., Norén Selinus, E., Lichtenstein, P., Hellner, C., Anckarsäter, H., & Lundström, S. (2021). The relationship between intelligence and global adaptive functioning in young people with or without neurodevelopmental disorders. Psychiatry Research, 303, 114076.
2. Elleseff, T. (2024, October 19). Supporting adolescents with high IQ and language/literacy needs. Tatyana Elleseff Consulting in Speech-Language Pathology.
3. Ganuthula, V. R. R., & Sinha, S. (2019). The looking glass for intelligence quotient tests: The interplay of motivation, cognitive functioning, and affect. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2857.
4. Gierczyk, M., & Hornby, G. (2021). Twice-exceptional students: Review of implications for special and inclusive education. Education Sciences, 11(2), 85.
5. Gilger, J., & Hynd, G. (2008). Neurodevelopmental variation as a framework for thinking about the twice exceptional. Roeper Review, 30, 214–228.
6. Gilman, B. J., Lovecky, D. V., Kearney, K., Peters, D. B., Wasserman, J. D., Silverman, L. K., Postma, M. G., Robinson, N. M., Amend, E. R., Ryder-Schoeck, M., Curry, P. H., Lyon, S. K., Rogers, K. B., Collins, L. E., Charlebois, G. M., Harsin, C. M., & Rimm, S. B. (2013). Critical Issues in the Identification of Gifted Students With Co-Existing Disabilities: The Twice-Exceptional. SAGE Open, 3(3).
7. Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283–2290.
8. King, E. W. (2005). Addressing the Social and Emotional Needs of Twice-Exceptional Students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(1), 16-21.
9. Lleras, C. (2008). Do skills and behaviors in high school matter? The contribution of noncognitive factors in explaining differences in educational attainment and earnings. Social Science Research, 37(3), 888–902.
10. Martin, K. C., Ketchabaw, W. T., & Turkeltaub, P. E. (2022). Plasticity of the language system in children and adults. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 184, 397–414.
11. National Education Association. (2006). The twice-exceptional dilemma. National Education Association.
12. Ren, X., Schweizer, K., Wang, T., & Xu, F. (2015). The prediction of students’ academic performance with fluid intelligence in giving special consideration to the contribution of learning. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11(3), 97–105.
13. Ritchie, S. (2015). Intelligence: All that matters. John Murray Press.
14. Schugar, H. R., & Dreher, M. J. (2017). U.S. fourth graders’ informational text comprehension: Indicators from NAEP. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(3), 523–552.
15. Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171—186). New York: Guilford Press.
16. Silverman, L. K. (2009). The two-edged sword of compensation: How the gifted cope with learning disabilities. Gifted Education International, 25(2), 115–130.
17. Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). Interventions for children’s language and literacy difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(1), 27–34.
18. Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Molfese, P. J., Weiss, B., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 31–51.