Supporting twice-exceptional students, those who are both gifted and have ADHD, requires a fundamental shift in how we define ability, success, and development. As both an educator and a parent, I’ve learned that the most important work is not diagnosing or labeling, but learning how to see these students clearly and respond to who they actually are. Research in gifted education consistently emphasizes the importance of strength-based identification and contextualized support for twice-exceptional learners (Kaufman, 2018; Reis & Renzulli, 2010; Sabatino & Wiebe, 2018).
One of the first questions parents ask is, “How do I know if my child is gifted?” The professional answer usually points to standardized measures like the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Woodcock-Johnson, which assess multiple cognitive domains such as verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, fluid reasoning, and visual-spatial skills (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2006). These tools can be useful, but they are imperfect, especially for twice-exceptional students. ADHD can suppress performance in areas that require sustained attention or processing speed, dragging down a full-scale IQ score even when some subtests land in the 99th percentile (Barkley, 2015; Brown, 2013).
This is why rigid definitions of giftedness often fail 2e students. One of the most resonant definitions comes from the Columbus Group, a collective of educators and psychologists who described giftedness as asynchronous development, where advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity create inner experiences that are qualitatively different from the norm (Silverman, 1993). In other words, giftedness is not uniform or tidy. It is uneven, dynamic, and often masked by learning differences (Kaufman, 2018).
School, as currently designed, is especially challenging for gifted students with ADHD. The demands of sitting still, sustaining focus, transitioning between tasks, and navigating social dynamics directly target areas of neurological vulnerability (Barkley, 2015). Even transitions themselves are complex. As Rappaport and Minahan describe in The Behavior Code, a transition involves ending one activity, shifting cognitive sets, beginning a new task, and managing the unstructured space in between (Rappaport & Minahan, 2016). For an ADHD brain, those few unstructured seconds can be enough to trigger dysregulation.
Effective support often looks deceptively simple. Structured breaks matter. Balancing preferred and non-preferred tasks matters. And with gifted students in particular, engaging their intellect can be a powerful regulatory tool. Abstract thinking, philosophical questions, and theoretical play can disarm resistance and give their minds a place to roam productively. Depth, not speed, is often the key, aligning with research on interest-driven motivation and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
This is where many traditional gifted strategies fall short for 2e learners. Acceleration, for example, can backfire when a student has high verbal comprehension but slow processing speed. Moving faster may increase frustration rather than challenge (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2006). A better approach is to allow students to demonstrate mastery of basic skills through more advanced, complex work. Depth and complexity are often more accessible than pace (Tomlinson, 2014; Sabatino & Wiebe, 2018).
Ideal academic programming for gifted students with ADHD emphasizes project-based and experiential learning, interdisciplinary work, and personal relevance. Chunking lower-level material allows students to spend more time engaging deeply with high-level ideas. Authentic work matters. When skills like reading comprehension, writing, or math are embedded in meaningful projects, students are far more likely to persist (Sabatino & Wiebe, 2018; Tomlinson, 2014).
Executive functioning challenges are real for 2e students, but they are also situational. What’s fascinating is that these same students often display strong executive skills when working in areas of deep personal interest. This suggests the skills exist, but are not consistently activated (Barkley, 2015; Brown, 2013; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). A student who cannot complete Algebra II may thrive in a rigorous computer science course because the context ignites motivation and focus.
Strength-based education is not about ignoring challenges. It is about leading with assets. Every student has strengths, whether academic, creative, interpersonal, or character-based. When educators build relationships, use affirming language, and align learning with student interests, engagement increases and skills develop more naturally (Reis & Renzulli, 2010; Sabatino & Wiebe, 2018). In my own research on signature strengths, I found that intentional identification of student strengths led to measurable gains in reading comprehension. This is not feel-good philosophy. It works.
Mentorship plays a critical role here. One student I worked with was obsessed with weather and maps. His thinking was hard for others to follow, but when his family leaned into that interest and connected him with a mentor, everything changed. They met only a handful of times, but the intellectual match was transformative. Being with “his people” mattered more than any worksheet ever could. Research on belonging and identity formation among gifted learners reinforces the importance of intellectual peer alignment and mentorship (Kaufman, 2018; Sabatino & Wiebe, 2018).
As gifted students grow older, supporting independence requires patience and a longer runway. School is not how the adult world works. Our lives are not divided into six subjects a day. Many 2e students flourish when they find communities, mentors, and work that aligns with their passions. The challenge is helping them get there without crushing their spirit along the way (Reis & Renzulli, 2010).
Giftedness is not always visible through production. ADHD can obscure output, making capable students appear less competent than they are. When we mistake compliance for ability, we miss enormous potential. A flexible, humane approach that centers connection, authentic work, and strength development is not a luxury for twice-exceptional students. It is a necessity (Kaufman, 2018; Sabatino & Wiebe, 2018).
If we want these students to thrive, we must be willing to redesign environments, challenge rigid definitions, and trust paths that look unconventional. The goal is not to make them fit school. The goal is to help them become fully themselves, with the skills and confidence to carry their gifts into the world.
REFERENCES
Barkley, R. A. (2015). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Brown, T. E. (2013). A new understanding of ADHD in children and adults: Executive function impairments. Routledge.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
Kaufman, S. B. (Ed.). (2018). Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties. Oxford University Press.
Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2006). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Rappaport, N., & Minahan, J. (2016). The behavior code: A practical guide to understanding and teaching the most challenging students. Harvard Education Press.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 308–317.
Sabatino, C. A., & Wiebe, C. R. (2018). Bridges Academy: A strengths-based model for 2e. In S.B. Kaufman (Ed.), Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties (pp. xx–xx). Oxford University Press.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Love Publishing
————————————-
Chris Wiebe, Ed.D. is an educator who has spent most of his career working with twice-exceptional students. He spent seven years as a classroom teacher before moving into an administrative role which involved supporting student learning and supporting families with neurodiverse students. After almost 20 years working with twice-exceptional students, he found himself with a gifted son with ADHD.
