I wish to make a submission for the Inquiry into support for autistic children and young people in schools. This submission addresses the needs of gifted autistic children and young people in WA schools.
NB – the terms 2E and twice-exceptional are used to identify gifted and learning-disabled students – gifted autistic children and young people are part of this group of learners.
One – Lack of appropriate teacher training in gifted education
The absence of compulsory gifted education units in teacher training programs in Western Australian universities contributes to educators’ limited awareness of the specific needs and characteristics of gifted autistic students, leading to underrepresentation and denying them appropriate challenge and stimulation. The Federal Inquiry into The Education of Gifted and Talented Children emphasizes the importance of training teachers to identify and support gifted children, particularly those from disadvantaged groups, stating that “equity and excellence are not in conflict.” (Inquiry into the education of gifted and talented children - Chapter 3 - Better Schooling for Gifted Children)
Teachers without specific training in gifted education may overlook the exceptional abilities and talents of gifted autistic students, limiting their educational experiences and personal development. According to Wormald and Vialle, “11% of high potential and gifted students also have a disability.”
Limited emphasis on gifted education in teacher training programs can result in misidentification of gifted autistic students, leading to missed opportunities and inadequate support. As stated on ACARA’s website, “14 percent of children who are identified as being intellectually gifted may also have a learning disability, whereas only about 4 percent of children in the general population may also have a learning disability.” (Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students)
Teachers lacking proper training in gifted education may underestimate the abilities and potential of gifted autistic students, hindering their growth and missing out on enrichment opportunities. Gifted autistic individuals often employ adaptive coping strategies, making it challenging for teachers to identify their unique needs. By gaining knowledge about the characteristics and challenges faced by gifted autistic students, teachers can create a nurturing and inclusive learning environment that promotes their talents and holistic development.
Western Australia should make it mandatory for teacher training programs to include units on gifted education, establish clear guidelines for identifying and supporting gifted autistic students, and promote collaboration and professional development opportunities for educators to enhance their understanding and support of these students’ educational needs.
Two – Lack of pathways into GATE programs excludes gifted autistic students from equitable access to specialist programs.
The disability provisions in GATE programs in Western Australia (WA) currently do not adequately accommodate Twice Exceptional students, leading to their exclusion and neglecting their specific needs and potential. This lack of accommodations and equitable pathways contributes to the underrepresentation of these students in GATE programs.
The NSW Review of Selective Education Access has highlighted the shortcomings of the current disability provisions, recognizing that they are unsuitable and can deter gifted students with disabilities from applying and hinder their progress once they are enrolled (Standards, 2019). The NSW action plan aims to address these issues by ensuring that entry to selective schools is based on ability rather than background, optimizing the selection process to accurately identify students’ abilities, and filling the gaps in the current complex selection system (Standards, 2019).
WA education should utilize the NSW findings to improve their disability provisions in GATE programs. By focusing on promoting equitable access and support for gifted autistic students, WA can revise their disability provisions, enhance identification practices, and foster a more inclusive and supportive environment for Twice Exceptional students within GATE programs. This revision will enable these students to fully explore and develop their potential, ensuring they receive the opportunities they deserve.
Three – The SCSA doesn’t acknowledge twice-exceptional students.
The exclusion of twice-exceptional students by the SCSA in their documents and webpages contributes to a misconception that giftedness and learning disabilities cannot coexist, which promotes an educational deficit model. This omission fails to acknowledge the unique strengths and challenges of these students, disregarding the importance of tailored support and accommodations. Neglecting to address their specific learning profiles can lead to underachievement and frustration, missing an opportunity to harness their full potential. By neglecting to recognize the dual exceptionalism of these students, the SCSA perpetuates a deficit model that focuses primarily on challenges instead of nurturing their talents. This reinforces the misguided belief that giftedness and learning disabilities are mutually exclusive, ignoring the complexity of human intelligence.
In contrast, other Curriculum and Standards Authorities, such as NESA and QCAA, have taken steps to acknowledge the existence and educational needs of twice-exceptional students. For instance, the New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA) explicitly recognizes that “gifted and talented students may also have disabilities and/or English as an additional Language or dialect” in their guidelines on gifted education. Similarly, the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority provides links to resources specifically designed to support twice-exceptional students in their gifted and talented education materials.
It is important for the SCSA to proactively address the omission of twice-exceptional students in their guidelines and ensure that their educational needs are properly recognized and supported. By doing so, they can create a more inclusive and supportive educational environment that acknowledges and nurtures the unique abilities and challenges of these students.
Four – SCSA’s Judging Standards for English - Communication skills contains language that is reminiscent to the DSM5’s criteria for autism diagnosis.
The SCSA’s Judging Standards for English Communication skills potentially limits gifted autistic students based not on their abilities but on autistic traits. When placed under the DSM5’s diagnostic criteria, the similarities in language use is evident (see below). The grading of neuro-typical communication skills commences in Pre-Primary and continues throughout a child’s whole education.
As SCSA’s Judging Standards are ‘a tool to support teachers when reporting against the achievement standards for each year of schooling; when giving assessment feedback; and when explaining the differences between one student’s achievement and another’s.’, the use of these criteria often appears in teacher written student rubrics in English and in other subjects when teachers make use of cross-curricular assessments. The use of these Judging Standards can lead to an inaccurate comparison between gifted autistic children and their neurotypical peers, as the criteria for evaluation are based on neurotypical development and communication norms. Students are limited to a ‘Satisfactory’ grade if they are unable to mask their autistic communication style and present in a neuro-typical manner. As these grades contribute to a student’s reportable marks, there is the potential that gifted autistic students are underachieving due to the discriminatory nature of the Judging Standards. Students who require certain pre-requisite grades to access gifted programs, higher level classes or as ATAR prerequisites are unfairly disadvantaged by these criteria and face potential long-term limitation that’s extend beyond their schooling years.
These criteria reinforce a view that a gifted autistic student’s communication skills are solely defined by their autism related difficulties, disregarding their advanced linguistic abilities or other talents. teachers and evaluators may overlook or undervalue the child’s advanced skills, leading to missed opportunities for appropriate enrichment and support.
As the Judging Standards are regularly used by teachers in their creation of class rubrics, gifted autistic children constantly encounter language or assessment frameworks that emphasize deficits associated with autism, it can contribute to stigmatization and negatively impact their self-esteem. This language use also perpetuates a neuro normative view of communication and reinforces an acceptance of ableism.
DSM5 - Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors, such as eye contact, facial expressions, and body language Judging Standards: Attempts to use some body language including stance, gestures, and eye contact to engage audience attention and/or interest. Responds to some verbal and non-verbal cues, enabling participation in discussions.
DSM5 - Difficulties in understanding and using social-emotional reciprocity, such as back-and-forth conversation and sharing interests or emotions
Judging Standards
Participates in class and group discussions and responds to others’ contributions. Works collaboratively in some formal and informal situations, attempting to negotiate with other group members or taking on roles allocated by others. Participates in informal and/or formal situations using strategies such as listening, taking turns, and contributing to others’ ideas. Uses a variety of strategies and language features to interact in group and class discussions, listening purposefully and responding to others. Speaks clearly with expression and attempts to engage an audience.
DSM5 - Lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with others Judging standards Attempts to use some body language including stance, gestures, and eye contact to engage audience attention and/or interest. Responds to some verbal and non-verbal cues, enabling participation in discussions.
Five – SCSA’s ASCSA’s Equitable Access to Assessment Policy perpetuates a narrow and limited understanding of equity and limits the access to assessments for gifted autistic students.
The SCSA’s Access to Assessment Policy states that ‘the adjustment would enable participation in the assessment on the same basis as a student without disability’. (Equitable access to assessment policy) These guidelines deny gifted autistic students the opportunity to access assessments in line with their neurotypical gifted peers. By limiting the access to assessments to the ‘same basis of as a student without disability’, these access provisions fail to recognise their giftedness. It perpetuates a narrow and limited understanding of equality by treating all students as if they are the same and perpetuates the myth that autism and giftedness are mutually exclusive.
Further to this, autistic students ‘must demonstrate current functional impact’ to be able to access assessment provisions is problematic as gifted autistic students often use their gifts to mask their disabilities so that they don’t outwardly demonstrate these functional impacts. This can lead to the underestimation of the support a student needs to be able to achieve to their personal potential. Requiring students to constantly prove their functional impact may place an additional burden on them and their parents. Parents who often have to engage external providers to produce the required evidence and advocate for provisions their child is entitled to but are not being given access to due to these narrow understanding of equity. This is ultimately perpetuating a system that disadvantages and discriminates against gifted autistic students.
SCSA should look to the ACT Education Directorate and develop policies that are more inclusive and equitable. The ACT Education Directorate’s Gifted and talented Students Policy clearly identifies the complex needs of twice exceptional students - “Twice exceptional students should be provided with support, including reasonable adjustments for disability, to allow them to participate in their education on the same basis as gifted students without disability.’ (Gifted and talented students policy). This would ensure that gifted autistic students access equitable assessment provisions and allow them to achieve on the same basis as a gifted student without disability.
References
e ACT Government; PositionTitle=Web Manager; SectionName=Online Services; Corporate=ACT
Education Directorate. (n.d.). Gifted and talented students policy. Education. https://www.education.act.gov.au/publications_and_policies/School-and-Corporate-Policies/access and-equity/gifted-and-talented/gifted-and-talented-students-policy
e Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (n.d.). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students. The Australian Curriculum (Version 8.4). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/meeting-the-needs-of-gifted and-talented-students/
e Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130420003 14682
e Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 81-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
e Gifted and talented education. Supporting resources list. (n.d.). https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/p_10/p-10_sd_ gifted talented resource _list.pdf
e Gifted education. Gifted education | NSW Education Standards. (n.d.).
https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k- 10/diversity-in-learning/gifted-education
e K-10 Outline, S. (2022, February 22). Judging standards. Kindergarten to Year 10 website. https://k1 0outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/home/assessment/judgingstandards
e SCSA. (n.d.). Equitable access to assessment policy. https://senior secondary.scsa.wa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/987121/Equitable-Access-to-Assessment
Policy-and-Guidelines.pdf
e Senate., Inquiry into the education of gifted and talented children - Chapter 3 - Better Schooling for Gifted Children (2001). Canberra; The Committee.
e Standards, E. (2019, September 11). Review of Selective Education Access. Education. https://education.nsw. gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/our-reports-and-reviews/review-of selective-education-access
e Wormald, D. C., & Vialle, P. W. (n.d.). NSW Public Schools survey of high potential and gifted students with disability 2021 . https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching and-learning/high-potential-and-gifted-education/survey-hpg-students-with-disability-2021.pdf