I haven't been through it, per se, but I did find a reference at the end of my post to this thread that included some strategies used in a GT program to manage the other e in their 2e students. There are some references to how they addressed both exceptionalities. Also, indications that quite a few 2e children are already in GT programs, without any specific awareness on the part of schools:
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/230386/1.htmlIn general, I take the position that specialized instruction is equally applicable at both ends of the spectrum. In the interest of LRE, those needs that can be met in the general education setting, whether GT or LD, should be, with appropriate accommodations. As necessary instructional modification needs become increasingly intense, whether for GT or LD needs, then services should become correspondingly intense.
With our own children, we've always addressed both ends at the same time. I think the key is identifying the essence of the learning standards, and de-coupling all skills that are not core skills. So if your DD goes into a classroom of GT peers, she will need both accommodations to facilitate access (e.g., her AT supports), and changes in how teachers view essential instructional activities. Is the number of pages written in response to a reading really at the core of demonstrating mastery of literary analysis at the benchmark level? Or can she demonstrate that with equal or greater effectiveness in fewer written words, or in an oral or dictated report? Or in a wide-ranging classroom discussion?
I think the major challenge in providing her with greater access to gifted services will be in training the gifted service providers in implementing accommodations and modifications to response and assessment criteria. I would say having a formal consult service (written in the IEP A grid) by the special education teacher/liaison/case manager to the TAG program staff could be quite important.
From a purely academic standpoint, I agree that the special ed school staff should be able to provide sufficient challenge. In theory, it's no different modifying curricula up than it is down, and they would be able to truly individualize, WRT compacting/depth/acceleration/etc. From a gifted peer perspective, as well as from a LRE perspective, mainstreaming to TAG one day a week has its own value. What about doing both?
