The Gifted Students We Didn’t Identify
Imagine a student who asks insightful questions that reveal connections, possibilities, and perspectives beyond the expected, but struggles to complete written work.
Or a student who recently arrived in the country and is still learning English.
Or a student whose ADHD symptoms are noticed long before their exceptional reasoning abilities.
Or a student who appears disengaged in the classroom yet demonstrates insight when given the opportunity to explore ideas more deeply.
Would they be identified as gifted?
Often, gifted education programs are designed to find students who demonstrate exceptional potential. Yet despite educators’ and school systems’ best efforts, some students inevitably go unnoticed despite the best efforts of educators and good intentions of school system polices. It’s not because these students lack ability, but because the ways we identify giftedness may not always capture how it can appear.
As conversations about fairness, access, and development continue to shape the future of gifted education, an important question remains: Who might we still be missing?
The students we don’t always see
Giftedness does not look the same in every student. While some learners fit traditional expectations of giftedness, others may show advanced potential in less visible ways. Research increasingly suggests that identification systems can overlook students whose strengths do not align with conventional indicators of giftedness or with educators’ expectations of what giftedness “should” look like.1
The quiet student
Some gifted learners do not actively seek attention in the classroom. They may be highly observant, reflective, and capable of complex reasoning, yet rarely raise their hand, volunteer answers, or assume leadership roles.
Because teacher referrals remain a common pathway into gifted programming, students who express their abilities in less visible ways may be overlooked. Research has shown that teachers often identify giftedness based on observable characteristics such as high achievement, participation, and classroom engagement, potentially creating barriers for students who are introverted or whose potential emerges differently.2 These learners challenge us to consider whether our identification systems recognize potential itself or only the most visible demonstrations of potential.
The twice-exceptional student
For twice-exceptional (2e) learners, giftedness and disability often coexist in complex ways.
A student with exceptional reasoning ability may also have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or another disorder that affects academic performance. In some cases, advanced abilities compensate for learning challenges. In others, the disorder masks gifted potential.
Researchers have long described this phenomenon as “masking,” where strengths and challenges effectively conceal one another, delaying identification and support.3 Gifted education professionals are increasingly recognizing that high-ability and disability are not mutually exclusive. Yet many 2e students remain unidentified because traditional measures of giftedness may not fully capture their abilities.
The emerging English language learner
For English language learners, language proficiency and cognitive ability are not the same thing.
A student may possess exceptional reasoning, problem-solving, or pattern-recognition skills while still developing proficiency in the language used for classroom instruction or assessment. When identification processes rely heavily on language-based measures, gifted multilingual learners may be overlooked in gifted programs despite demonstrating significant potential.4
Researchers have repeatedly found that culturally and linguistically diverse students remain under-identified in gifted education, often because traditional identification methods do not fully account for differences in language acquisition, educational opportunity, and cultural background.5 As schools become increasingly diverse, identifying potential across culturally and linguistically diverse groups remains one of the field’s most important challenges.
The student without an advocate
Some students are overlooked simply because no one is in a position to advocate for them.
Research shows that referral-based identification systems can produce disparities when access to gifted programming depends on parent requests, teacher nominations, or familiarity with the identification process.6 Students whose families are less aware of available services or who attend schools with limited gifted resources may have fewer opportunities to enter the identification pipeline.
This reality helps explain why experts increasingly emphasize systemic approaches to talent development that proactively seek potential rather than waiting for nominations. Talent is distributed broadly across communities. Opportunities to be recognized are not always distributed as evenly.
Why traditional identification approaches can create blind spots
Most gifted identification systems are built with good intentions and grounded in practices that have supported students for decades. Teacher nominations, grades, achievement data, parent referrals, and standardized assessments can all provide valuable information. The challenge is that no single measure captures the full picture of a learner’s potential.
- Achievement isn’t always ability. Academic achievement and cognitive ability are related, but they are not interchangeable. A student’s performance may be influenced by access to resources, instructional opportunities, socio-economic factors, motivation, language proficiency, or disability-related barriers. High achievement can signal advanced potential, but potential does not always translate immediately into high achievement.
- Opportunity gaps shape outcomes. Students who have had greater access to enrichment opportunities often have more chances to demonstrate advanced performance. Conversely, students from historically underrepresented groups may not have had the same opportunities to develop or showcase their abilities, even when they possess significant potential.
- National comparisons can obscure local potential. Standardized assessments are often interpreted using national norms, but many districts serve populations that look very different from the national sample. Students with exceptional potential within their local context may not meet nationally defined cutoffs, particularly in communities that have faced systemic barriers to educational opportunity. This can lead to gifted programs that underrepresent the potential that exists within the district itself.
- Teacher referrals are valuable but imperfect. Teachers play a critical role in identifying gifted learners. However, research suggests that referral-based systems can produce different outcomes depending on a teacher’s perceptions, experiences, and expectations.6 Further, referrals are often based on a snapshot of a student’s performance and behavior within a specific classroom and period of time.
What we are learning from universal testing
Over the past decade, more districts have adopted universal screening approaches, evaluating all students rather than relying primarily on referrals. This shift reflects a growing understanding that giftedness can take many forms and that referral systems alone may not capture every student with advanced potential.
Research has found that universal screening can help increase representation among traditionally under-identified groups, including students from lower-income backgrounds, multilingual learners, and students from historically marginalized communities.7 Just as importantly, universal screening creates a more consistent opportunity for students to demonstrate their abilities regardless of whether someone formally nominates them. The goal is not simply to identify more students. The goal is to ensure that students who might otherwise be overlooked have an opportunity to be seen.
Seeing potential differently
Nonverbal assessments place less emphasis on language and acquired knowledge and focus more directly on reasoning and problem-solving processes. Because they reduce linguistic and prior academic knowledge demands, they can be particularly useful when evaluating diverse student populations as part of a broader identification framework.
The Naglieri General Ability Tests™ were designed with this objective in mind. These tests measure general ability through nonverbal tasks and can be administered in a group setting, helping schools efficiently screen large numbers of students while considering a broader range of learners.
Importantly, no assessment should be viewed as a standalone solution. Rather, tools such as the Naglieri General Ability Tests (Naglieri–Verbal, Naglieri–Nonverbal, and Naglieri–Quantitative), can serve as one component of a comprehensive identification process that helps schools gain a more complete picture of student potential. For districts seeking to expand access while maintaining rigorous standards, this broader perspective can be an important part of identifying students who might otherwise remain hidden in plain sight.
Ready to look beyond traditional indicators of giftedness? Explore the Naglieri General Ability Tests.
The real goal isn’t identification
Identifying gifted students is important, but identification was never meant to be the finish line. The purpose of any identification process is not simply to determine who qualifies for services. It is to create opportunities for students to be challenged, supported, and developed over time. Whether a student’s strengths emerge through advanced reasoning, creativity, leadership, problem-solving, or another form of potential, the ultimate goal is to ensure those abilities have a chance to grow. Identification opens the door; what comes next determines whether that potential is realized.
Perhaps the most important question for educators is not, “Who did we identify?” but rather, “Who might we still be missing?” As schools continue to refine identification practices and expand opportunities for students to demonstrate their strengths, the focus can shift from finding giftedness to developing it. When educators look beyond traditional indicators and consider the many ways giftedness can present itself, they move closer to creating systems that help every student be understood as they are and empowered to realize their potential.
Learn how your school can expand opportunities for gifted learners. Get in touch with a member of our team today.
Want more insights like this delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to receive the latest articles, research, and resources from MHS.
References
1 Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through a Different Lens: Reflecting on a Strength-Based, Talent-Focused Approach for Twice-Exceptional Learners. Prufrock Press.
2 Siegle, D., Moore, M., Mann, R. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2010). Factors that influence teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 39-54.
3 Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Colangelo, N. (2011). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3-17.
4 Callahan, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 98-104.
5 Ford, D. Y. (2014). Why gifted education needs multicultural education. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 203-204.
6 Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1-25.
7 Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678-13683.
