Gifted and Talented Education Guide: Definitions, Gifted Testing, Programs, Acceleration, Twice-Exceptional Students and State Laws

Gifted and talented education is the identification and services, from acceleration and pull-out classes to cluster grouping and selective programs, that schools provide for students whose abilities are well beyond those of their age-mates. Federal law defines gifted and talented students as those who “give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields” and who need services not ordinarily provided by the school (20 U.S.C. 7801(27)). About 6.1 percent of U.S. public school students were enrolled in gifted and talented programs in 2020–21, according to the federal Civil Rights Data Collection, but the share ranged from 12.4 percent of Asian students and 7.7 percent of White students to 4.3 percent of Hispanic students and 3.4 percent of Black students (National Center for Education Statistics, Digest Table 204.90). No federal law requires schools to identify or serve these students; in the latest national survey of state education agencies, for 2022–23, 35 of 50 respondents said their state requires gifted students to be identified, 25 of 48 said their state mandates gifted services, and slightly more than half reported dedicated state funding (National Association for Gifted Children and Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted, 2022–2023 State of the States in Gifted Education).

This guide to gifted and talented education explains how giftedness is defined, how many students are identified, what states require and fund, how gifted testing works, what research shows about universal screening, local norms, program models and acceleration, how schools serve twice-exceptional students, the debates over equity and program elimination, gifted students’ social and emotional needs, and the federal Javits program. It is written for district and school leaders, gifted coordinators and classroom teachers, with a section for families, and covers K–12 public schools in the United States. Each section links to edCircuit’s more detailed coverage.

Updated October 2026.

In this guide

• The basics: What “gifted and talented” means · How many students are identified · Is there a federal mandate? · State laws and funding
• Identification: Gifted testing and identification · Universal screening · Local norms and referral
• Services: Gifted and talented program models · Acceleration and grade skipping · Do gifted programs raise achievement? · Twice-exceptional students
• Debates and needs: Equity and the elimination of programs · Social and emotional needs · Teachers and training · The federal Javits program
• People: Families · Questions to ask

What does “gifted and talented” mean?

“Gifted and talented” describes students who perform, or show the capability to perform, at levels well above others of their age in one or more areas and who need instruction or services beyond the regular program to keep learning. Three layers of definition matter in practice.

• The federal definition. The Every Student Succeeds Act, like the No Child Left Behind Act before it, defines gifted and talented students by two conditions: evidence of high achievement capability in intellectual, creative, artistic or leadership capacity or in specific academic fields, and a need for “services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities” (20 U.S.C. 7801(27)). It governs federal programs such as the Javits grants but requires no school to identify or serve anyone.
• NAGC’s definition. The National Association for Gifted Children’s board approved a position statement on July 11, 2019, stating that students with gifts and talents “perform – or have the capability to perform – at higher levels compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains,” and that they require modifications to their educational experiences to learn and realize their potential. The statement adds five elements: such students come from all racial, ethnic and cultural groups and economic strata; need access to appropriate learning opportunities; can have learning and processing disorders that require specialized intervention; need support to develop socially and emotionally; and require services that change as their needs change.
• State definitions. Because the federal definition carries no mandate, states set the definitions schools actually work with. In the 2022–23 State of the States survey, 46 of 50 respondents reported a state definition of giftedness, which typically included advanced intellectual ability, creativity and academic performance, and 38 required districts to follow it. In the 2020–21 survey, performing arts (18 states), leadership (16) and visual arts (16) were also commonly named (2020–2021 State of the States).

NAGC’s phrase “compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment” treats giftedness as relative to a student’s opportunities, the reasoning behind the local norms discussed later. The federal definition’s second condition matters as much as the first: a student already well served by the regular program may not need gifted services.

Neither definition describes the student who simply works hard and follows directions; a capable student who is bored, disorganized or has a learning disability may fit them better. edCircuit has written about the distinction:

• What Is the Difference Between Bright and Gifted?
• How to Spot a Gifted Child
• There Needs to Be a National Definition for Gifted
• What Does It Mean to Be Almost Gifted?

How many students are identified as gifted?

About one in sixteen public school students was enrolled in a gifted and talented program in 2020–21, a share that has changed little since 2004 but that varies widely by state and by student group. The figures come from the Civil Rights Data Collection, in which the Office for Civil Rights asks every public school how many students are in gifted programs, as published in the Digest of Education Statistics (Table 204.90, prepared February 2024).

Source: NCES, Digest Table 204.90, from the Civil Rights Data Collection. Race categories exclude students of Hispanic ethnicity. The 2020–21 collection took place during the pandemic, and the decline from 2017–18 may reflect disrupted testing as well as policy.

State differences are larger still. In 2020–21, 12.3 percent of Virginia’s public school students and 12.5 percent of Oklahoma’s were enrolled in gifted programs, compared with 8.2 percent in Texas, 1.3 percent in New York and 0.5 percent in Massachusetts. Those gaps mostly reflect state law and local practice, such as whether identification is required, which cut scores apply and whether advanced services are reported under the gifted label, so comparisons within a state or district are more informative than comparisons between states.

Gaps by group appear within states too: in Texas, 19.6 percent of Asian students, 11.2 percent of White students, 6.6 percent of Hispanic students and 4.3 percent of Black students were in gifted programs in 2020–21. NAGC acknowledges that the share served “does not currently reflect the general student population” and attributes part of the gap to identification methods. edCircuit’s coverage:

• The Challenge of Identifying Gifted Children from Poverty
• From NPR: Who Are the ‘Gifted and Talented’ and What Do They Need?

Is there a federal mandate to serve gifted students?

No. Federal law defines gifted and talented students and funds a small research and demonstration program for them, but it does not require states or districts to identify or serve them. The 2020–21 State of the States report put it plainly: “There is no federal mandate to identify or serve gifted students in the United States,” so services vary widely across and within states.

The Every Student Succeeds Act, signed in December 2015, does mention gifted students in several places:

• Title I local plans. A district’s Title I plan may describe how the district will “assist schools in identifying and serving gifted and talented students” (20 U.S.C. 6312(b)(13)). The provision is optional.
• Title II, Part A. A district’s Title II activities, the main federal source of funds for educator development, must address the learning needs of all students, “including children with disabilities, English learners, and gifted and talented students” (20 U.S.C. 6613). Among allowable uses, the law lists training to support the identification of gifted students, “including high-ability students who have not been formally identified for gifted education services,” and instructional practices such as early entrance to kindergarten; enrichment, acceleration and curriculum compacting; and dual or concurrent enrollment in secondary and postsecondary education.
• The Javits program. Section 4644 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorizes the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program, a competitive grant program described in its own section below (20 U.S.C. 7294).

State agencies rank the federal gap among the strongest influences on gifted education; the 2022–23 survey lists the “lack of recognition of gifted students in federal education law” among the top factors. A district’s obligations therefore come from state law and board policy, with Title II as one possible source of training funds. edCircuit’s coverage:

• The Lay of the Gifted Funding Land
• Advocating for the Gifted
• Professional Development for Teachers, which covers Title II, Part A

What do state laws require, and how are gifted programs funded?

State requirements range from full mandates to identify and serve gifted students to none at all; roughly half of states mandate services and roughly half provide dedicated funding. The two most recent State of the States surveys:

Sources: 2020–2021 State of the States (published 2022) and 2022–2023 State of the States (published 2025). Counts include the District of Columbia and the Department of Defense Education Activity; New York and Ohio did not respond in 2022–23, and a changed answer option makes some figures not directly comparable across years.

Funding varies as much. In 2020–21, dedicated state funding ranged from $350,000 in Montana to about $76.6 million in North Carolina, and what counts as dedicated differs: Indiana reported a flat $500,000 for testing, Wyoming a block grant districts need not spend on gifted education. Three state laws show the range of requirements:

As Ohio shows, a state can require districts to find gifted students without requiring them to serve them. Leaders should read their own state’s statute and regulations directly; the examples here are limited to the laws this guide examined.

How does gifted testing and identification work?

Most districts identify gifted students in stages: a screening or referral step that decides who is considered, followed by an evaluation that combines test scores with other evidence and is reviewed by a committee or specialist.

• Who is considered. Traditionally, students are considered when a parent or teacher refers them. Some districts screen every student instead, as discussed in the next section; Virginia requires both annual review of every student’s data and acceptance of referrals.
• Ability tests. Cognitive ability tests, given individually or to groups, estimate reasoning ability against national norms; Ohio, for example, sets its threshold for “superior cognitive ability” at two standard deviations above the mean, minus the test’s standard error. Some districts use nonverbal tests, built on shapes and patterns rather than words, to reduce the influence of language; the Florida district described below used the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test.
• Achievement tests. Achievement tests measure what students already know in a subject. Ohio identifies “specific academic ability” in a field at or above the 95th percentile nationally on an approved achievement test.
• Above-level tests. Tests designed for older students can show how far beyond grade level a student is working; the authors of A Nation Empowered list above-level testing as “highly effective in identifying students who would benefit from acceleration.”
• Other evidence. Rating scales and checklists, portfolios, auditions and records of accomplishment are used especially for creative and artistic talent. Virginia requires a portfolio or performance measure for programs in the arts or career and technical aptitude.

Two principles recur: multiple measures, which Virginia requires, and attention to who a process misses, since a test-based rule still excludes students who are never referred. In 2022–23, 24 of 50 state respondents required districts to use specific identification criteria or methods.

Access to commercial test preparation is one concern raised against test-based admission, including in New York City, which ended its single admissions test for four-year-olds in 2021. edCircuit’s coverage of identification and testing:

• Test Prep for Cognitive Testing: It’s a Myth
• The Challenge of Identifying Gifted Children from Poverty
• How to Spot a Gifted Child

Does universal screening make gifted identification more equitable?

The strongest evidence says yes: when a large Florida district began screening every second grader instead of relying on referrals, identification rose sharply, most of all for low-income, Black, Hispanic and English learner students, with no change in eligibility standards. David Card and Laura Giuliano published the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in November 2016 (Card and Giuliano, 2016). The district, which the paper does not name, introduced screening in spring 2005, cut funding for follow-up IQ testing in 2007 and suspended the program in 2010. The main findings:

• Before screening. In the early 2000s only 28 percent of the district’s gifted third graders were Black or Hispanic, compared with 60 percent of all students, and 13 regular elementary schools had no gifted third graders in 2004 or 2005.
• After screening. Comparing the two cohorts before screening with the two after, the share of third graders identified as gifted rose from 3.3 percent to 5.5 percent overall; from 1.4 percent to 4.3 percent among low-income students and English learners; from 1.1 percent to 2.7 percent among Black students; and from 2.1 percent to 5.7 percent among Hispanic students, compared with 5.8 percent to 7.6 percent among White students.
• Size of the effect. Adjusting for trends, the authors estimate that screening raised the odds of identification by 174 percent for disadvantaged students, 118 percent for Hispanic students and 74 percent for Black students, against 12 percent for White students.
• Who had been missed. The newly identified students had IQ scores similar to those identified before, but lower achievement. The authors conclude that parents and teachers “often fail to recognize the potential” of poor and minority students and English learners; girls were also underreferred.
• When screening stopped. By 2011, after the program was suspended, the gifted share of third graders had returned to its 2004–2005 level.

The authors note limits: the study covers one district, which used a nonverbal screening test and a lower IQ threshold (116 rather than 130) for low-income students and English learners under Florida rules, and both features may have contributed to the results. NAGC’s 2019 position statement cites universal screening as increasing the identification of low-income and minority students “by 180%,” a figure this guide could not match to the study’s published estimates.

Most states leave screening to districts: in 2022–23, 37 of 50 respondents said it was not required. New York City and Seattle are among the districts that have adopted it. Screening costs testing time and staff, and funding for the individual evaluations that follow; and it only changes who is evaluated, so a district with too few seats or services will find more eligible students than it can serve.

What are local norms, and does teacher referral matter?

Local norms compare a student with others in the same school or district rather than with a national sample, and research suggests that both local norms and the race of the referring teacher make a large difference to who is identified.

Local norms. Scott Peters, Karen Rambo-Hernandez, Matthew Makel, Michael Matthews and Jonathan Plucker used ten years of test data from ten states, covering more than three million third graders, to compare identifying the top 5 percent nationally, statewide, by district or by school. In a study published in AERA Open, they found that school-level norms produced large increases in representation: as the authors summarized it, a 300 percent increase for Black students and 170 percent for Hispanic students in math, and 238 and 157 percent in reading (Peters et al., Thomas B. Fordham Institute). The authors acknowledge that the change would reduce identification of Asian American and White students and that the groups that gained remained underrepresented, and they propose expanding services rather than redistributing a fixed number of seats.

Local norms are a policy choice. New York City’s 2022 third-grade program, for example, invites the top 10 percent of second graders in each school, by grades, to apply (NYC Mayor’s Office, April 14, 2022), while some states do not permit local norms, as edCircuit’s There Needs to Be a National Definition for Gifted discusses.

Referral and teacher discretion. Jason Grissom and Christopher Redding of Vanderbilt University analyzed federal Early Childhood Longitudinal Study data on more than 10,000 elementary students in a study published in AERA Open (2016). Black students with high math and reading scores were assigned to gifted programs about half as often as White students with the same scores, a gap that persisted after controlling for health, socioeconomic status and school characteristics (AERA). All else equal, Black students were three times as likely to be assigned to gifted programs when taught by a Black teacher than by a teacher of another race, and the authors also found that 83 percent of Black elementary students, compared with 90 percent of White students, attended schools that offered gifted programs (Vanderbilt University). The authors suggested universal screening and teacher training, and cautioned against treating teacher bias as the only cause.

The three lines of research point the same way: when identification depends on someone noticing a student, some students are consistently missed, and procedures that look at every student and compare students with peers who had similar opportunities find more of them.

What do gifted and talented programs look like?

Gifted and talented programs take many forms, and most districts combine several; in elementary school the most common are differentiation in the regular classroom, pull-out programs, subject acceleration and cluster grouping, while high schools rely mainly on Advanced Placement, honors courses and dual enrollment. In the 2022–23 State of the States survey, Advanced Placement was the primary high school model in 36 states and honors coursework in 33. The main models:

The categories are a reading aid, not an official classification. A sound principle is that services should match the area of identification: a student identified for mathematics needs advanced mathematics, not a general enrichment hour, which Pennsylvania’s rule that services rest on needs “not solely on the student’s classification” puts into law. edCircuit’s coverage of program models:

• Understanding the Debate of Acceleration or Enrichment
• Nurturing the Gifted All the Way from K-12
• When Challenge and Engagement Go Hand-in-Hand
• The Path to the International Math Olympiad

What does research say about acceleration and grade skipping?

Acceleration, letting students move through the curriculum faster or earlier than their age-mates, has the strongest research base of any gifted education practice: accelerated students consistently outperform similar students who were not accelerated, perform about as well as the older students they join, and show no long-term harm to well-being in the best long-run study. The main sources:

• A Nation Empowered (2015). Published in April 2015 by the University of Iowa’s Belin-Blank Center and endorsed by NAGC, the report by Susan Assouline, Nicholas Colangelo, Joyce VanTassel-Baska and colleagues updated A Nation Deceived (2004). It lists 20 types of acceleration, from early kindergarten entry and grade skipping to subject acceleration, curriculum compacting, Advanced Placement and dual enrollment, grouped as grade-based or subject-based. Its summary points state that acceleration is “the most effective academic intervention for gifted children,” that it is low in cost, and that the few problems experienced with it have stemmed from inadequate planning and preparation. Its authors are advocates of acceleration.
• Steenbergen-Hu, Makel and Olszewski-Kubilius (2016). In a second-order meta-analysis published in the Review of Educational Research, researchers from Northwestern University and Duke University’s Talent Identification Program combined six earlier syntheses covering at least 125 studies of acceleration and 13 covering 172 studies of ability grouping. Accelerated students outperformed similar-age students who had not been accelerated and performed no differently from the older students with whom they were placed. Students benefited from within-class grouping, cross-grade subject grouping and special programs for gifted students, but between-class grouping that did not change the curriculum did not change achievement (Duke University, December 2016).
• Bernstein, Lubinski and Benbow (2020). In the Journal of Educational Psychology, researchers followed three cohorts of intellectually precocious youth identified before age 13 between 1972 and 1983 (1,636 people in all) for more than 35 years, and replicated the analysis with 478 elite STEM graduate students. In both studies, the amount of acceleration, measured by age at high school graduation and the number of advanced opportunities taken, “did not covary with psychological well-being” at age 50, and participants’ well-being was above national averages. The samples were drawn from the top 1 percent of ability or higher, so the results apply most directly to highly able students.

A Nation Empowered recommends that educators, parents and the student share each decision, and names the Iowa Acceleration Scale as one structured tool for whole-grade decisions. Subject acceleration also needs planning: a student who takes algebra early needs courses to take later.

Questions remain. Accelerated students may differ from comparison students in ways studies cannot fully measure, and the long-term study covers exceptionally able students. The research does not support concerns about social harm as a general rule, but each decision still depends on the student. edCircuit’s coverage:

• Stop Putting Students in Grades by Age
• Understanding the Debate of Acceleration or Enrichment

Do gifted programs raise student achievement?

The evidence on gifted programs as a whole is mixed: rigorous studies of typical programs find small or no average gains in test scores, while some specific programs, especially those that change what and how fast students learn, show large effects, including for high-achieving Black and Hispanic students. Four studies frame it:

• Bui, Craig and Imberman (2014). Using a regression discontinuity design in a large urban district, which compares students just above and just below the eligibility cutoff, and a lottery for elite magnet gifted schools, the economists found that achievement for students near the cutoff “neither improves nor worsens from GT services in the short run,” and that lottery winners did better only in science (American Economic Journal: Economic Policy).
• Redding and Grissom (2021). In a study presented in April 2021, using national data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Christopher Redding and Jason Grissom compared students’ results in years they received gifted services with years they did not. The typical student scored at the 80th rather than the 78th percentile in reading and the 77th rather than the 76th in math while receiving services; Black and low-income students did not see those gains; there was no relationship with absences or engagement; and state gifted policies were not associated with differences in gains (AERA study snapshot, April 2021).
• Card and Giuliano (2016). In the same Florida district studied for universal screening, schools with at least one gifted fourth grader created a separate “gifted/high achiever” classroom, filled mostly with non-gifted high achievers ranked by the previous year’s test scores. Participation led to significant gains concentrated among Black and Hispanic students, who gained 0.5 standard deviations in fourth-grade reading and math, with effects persisting to at least sixth grade and no evidence of effects on non-participants (NBER Working Paper 22104; published in the American Economic Review). The authors attribute most of the gain to factors such as teacher expectations and peer pressure, not to teacher quality or peers.
• Steenbergen-Hu and colleagues (2016). As described above, the century of research they synthesized found benefits from special programs for gifted students and from acceleration, but none from sorting students into separate classes without changing the curriculum.

The findings fit together. A gifted label does little by itself; what matters is whether students then study more advanced content at a suitable pace with teachers who expect a great deal. And the students who may gain most, high achievers from underidentified groups, are those a referral system is likeliest to miss. Districts should judge gifted services by what students learn, by student group, not by enrollment. edCircuit’s coverage:

• Are Gifted Programs Elitist?
• Eliminate Lost Potential by Teaching Motivation

How should schools serve twice-exceptional (2e) students?

Twice-exceptional, or 2e, students are gifted and also have a disability, such as a learning disability, ADHD, autism or an emotional disability, and schools are responsible both for recognizing their abilities and for evaluating and serving their disabilities. Each condition can hide the other. NAGC’s 2019 definition notes that being twice-exceptional “may negatively impact gifted education identification and opportunity to foster talents, as well as psychosocial functioning,” and that research supports a strengths-based, talent-focused approach.

Federal special education guidance is clear that high ability does not disqualify a student from services. In a December 20, 2013, letter to the gifted educator Jim Delisle, the Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs stated that students who have high cognition, have disabilities and require special education “are protected under the IDEA” and that it would be inconsistent with the law for a child, “regardless of whether the child is gifted,” to be found ineligible for services as a student with a specific learning disability solely because the child scored above a cut score set by state policy. In April 2015, citing reports that some districts were reluctant to evaluate such students, the office asked states to remind each district of its obligation to evaluate all children suspected of having a disability, “regardless of cognitive skills” (OSEP Memo 15-08).

For schools, the practical steps follow from both documents:

• Evaluate a student suspected of having a disability on the basis of a variety of assessments, as federal regulations require, rather than declining because grades are passing.
• Allow gifted identification to use evidence that a disability does not obscure, such as a strong score on one part of an ability test or a portfolio, and provide testing accommodations.
• Write the gifted service and the disability support into one plan, with the gifted coordinator and the special education team working together, so that the student is not offered support without challenge or challenge without support.

edCircuit’s Special Education Guide: IEPs, 504 Plans, IDEA and Parents’ Rights explains evaluations, eligibility and parents’ rights under IDEA in detail. Related coverage:

• 10 Myths of Gifted Children, which discusses twice-exceptional students
• Why Gifted Children Can Be At-Risk Too

Why are some districts eliminating or changing gifted programs?

Some districts have moved to end or restructure separate gifted programs because their enrollment is far less diverse than the student body; others have reversed those decisions after objections from families, and the evidence on the alternatives is still limited. The underrepresentation is not disputed; the remedy is.

New York City. On October 8, 2021, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chancellor Meisha Porter announced “Brilliant NYC,” which would eliminate the city’s gifted and talented admissions test for four-year-olds and its separate gifted classrooms, and instead offer accelerated learning within regular classrooms to 65,000 kindergarteners, compared with about 2,500 served by the existing program, with universal screening in second grade (NYC Department of Education, October 8, 2021). The next administration changed course. On April 14, 2022, Mayor Eric Adams and Chancellor David Banks announced an expansion instead: 100 new kindergarten seats, for a total of 2,500, chosen through teacher evaluation of every pre-kindergarten student, and 1,000 new third-grade seats, with a program in every one of the city’s 32 districts (NYC Mayor’s Office, April 14, 2022).

Seattle. Seattle Public Schools had planned to phase out its highly capable cohort schools, in which identified students are taught in self-contained classes, by 2027–28, in favor of advanced learning in neighborhood schools, as part of an effort to address the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic students. In March 2025 the district committed to keeping the cohort schools open for at least three more years, with a possible end date of 2029–30, while continuing neighborhood-school services and letting parents choose. After it moved to universal screening, more Black, Hispanic, Asian and multiracial students were identified in 2024; parents told the board that neighborhood-school services were often thin (KUOW, March 14, 2025).

The arguments on each side draw on the research in this guide:

• For restructuring. Separate programs have long enrolled disproportionately few Black, Hispanic and low-income students; studies of typical programs find small average gains, and none for Black and low-income students in national data; and between-class grouping without a change in curriculum does not raise achievement.
• For keeping and widening programs. Universal screening and local norms substantially increase the identification of underrepresented students; a separate high-achiever classroom produced large gains for Black and Hispanic students in Florida; acceleration and special programs for gifted students show benefits; and services moved into regular classrooms depend on teachers having time and training to differentiate.

The evidence suggests the real choice is between identification and service models that reach students in every school and models that do not. Similar questions arise in high schools over honors classes and detracking. edCircuit’s coverage:

• Lessons to Be Learned from the NYC System Gifted Dilemma
• Are Gifted Programs Elitist?
• The Debate Over Eliminating Honors Classes in High Schools
• The Dishonor of Honors Courses

What are the social and emotional needs of gifted students?

Research does not show that gifted students as a group are more prone to emotional or behavioral problems than others, though individual students face pressures such as a lack of challenge, and NAGC calls for deliberate support for their social and emotional development. Its 2019 position statement says that socio-emotional development “may lag intellectual development,” and that qualities such as emotion regulation, coping with challenges and criticism, willingness to take strategic risks and motivation should be developed because they may distinguish students who keep developing their talents from those who do not.

Two recent studies address common assumptions directly:

• Lavrijsen and Verschueren (2023). Much earlier research drew gifted samples from summer programs or counseling clinics, which can bias results. This study tested every seventh grader in 27 schools in Flanders, Belgium (3,409 students) and compared those with high measured ability (IQ of 120 or above) with their peers. Students with high ability “were not at increased risk of psychological maladjustment” on emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, worry or self-esteem; where differences existed, they favored the high-ability group. Students who had been formally labeled gifted, however, reported worse adjustment on several outcomes (Journal of Intelligence, February 2023). The study cannot say whether the label causes the difference.
• Bernstein, Lubinski and Benbow (2020). As described in the acceleration section, the long-term study found no relationship between acceleration and well-being at age 50, and above-average well-being among its highly able participants.

Teachers and counselors should assume neither that a gifted student is fragile nor that a high achiever needs no attention; underachievement and boredom call for finding out why and adjusting the work. The Flanders finding is a reason to watch how a label is used, not to withhold services. edCircuit’s related coverage:

• Why Gifted Children Can Be At-Risk Too
• 10 Myths of Gifted Children
• Growth Mindset vs. Fixed Mindset
• Social-Emotional Learning Guide

Who teaches gifted students, and what training do they need?

Most gifted students spend most of their day with regular classroom teachers, but state requirements for training in gifted education are limited, and few states require it of anyone other than gifted specialists. In the 2022–23 State of the States survey, 30 states required some level of training for teachers of gifted students, typically an endorsement, while only 4 required preservice teacher preparation in gifted education or training for counselors and administrators. In the 2020–21 survey, only 14 states required districts to have a gifted education coordinator, and only 4 of those required the coordinator to hold a credential in gifted education.

Because teacher referral shapes who is identified and regular classrooms deliver most services, training matters beyond specialists; Title II, Part A funds may pay for training in identification, acceleration, enrichment and curriculum compacting. edCircuit’s coverage:

• 5 Books Every Gifted Program Educator Should Read
• Having a Gifted Child and Being a Gifted Coordinator
• Professional Development for Teachers

What is the federal Javits gifted and talented program?

The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program is a federal competitive grant program that funds research, demonstration projects and a national research center rather than services in individual schools. Under Section 4644 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, its purpose is to support “evidence-based research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities” that build schools’ ability to identify gifted students and meet their needs (20 U.S.C. 7294). Its provisions include:

• Who may apply. State and local education agencies, the Bureau of Indian Education, colleges and universities, and other public and private agencies and organizations.
• What it funds. Research on identifying and teaching gifted students, “particularly low-income and at-risk students”; programs to identify and serve students “who may not be served by traditional gifted and talented programs,” such as summer, mentoring and service-learning programs; and technical assistance on adapting gifted methods for all students.
• A national research center. The law directs the department to establish a National Research Center for the Education of Gifted and Talented Children and Youth.
• Priority. The department must give highest priority to projects that develop new information on identifying and serving gifted students, including economically disadvantaged students, English learners and children with disabilities, who may not be identified through traditional assessment methods.

The department announced its fiscal 2026 Javits competition on April 22, 2026, with estimated available funds of $9 million for about 17 new awards of $400,000 to $650,000 each, for projects of up to five years; applications were due June 23, 2026 (FY 2026 application notice). One of its two absolute priorities is for projects carried out by state education agencies or tribal entities. The $9 million is the estimate for new awards, not the program’s total appropriation. For districts, Javits matters mainly as a source of tested models and research partnerships.

What should families know about gifted education?

Families matter more in gifted education than in most of schooling, because identification often depends on referral and rules differ by state and district. Practical steps:

• Learn the local rules. Ask the school or district for its written gifted policy: whether every student is screened, at what grades, which tests and other measures are used, how decisions are made and how to appeal one. State law sets the floor; district policy fills in the rest.
• Ask for an evaluation if it seems warranted. Where referral is the route to evaluation, a parent’s request often starts it.
• Ask what service follows identification. In some states, identification does not guarantee service. Families can ask what their child will do differently, for how many minutes or classes a week, with whom, and how progress will be reported.
• Ask about acceleration. Research supports subject acceleration and grade skipping for well-chosen students; families can ask whether the district has a written policy.
• Raise both strengths and struggles. A child who is gifted and also has a disability is entitled to a special education evaluation if a disability is suspected; ability is not a reason to decline one.
• Keep perspective on the label. Research does not show gifted children to be generally more fragile than others. What matters most is that the child is learning something new and challenging.

edCircuit’s Why Gifted Parents Are Such Advocates for Their Gifted Children, How to Spot a Gifted Child and 10 Myths of Gifted Children are written with families in mind.

Questions to ask about gifted and talented education in your schools

For school and district leaders and gifted coordinators

• What does our state require us to do for gifted students: define, identify, serve, write plans, notify parents, train teachers? When did we last read the statute and regulations?
• What percentage of students in each of our schools, and in each student group, is identified as gifted, and how does that compare with enrollment?
• Do we screen every student at least once, or does identification depend on parent and teacher referral?
• Do we compare students with national norms only, or also with peers in the same school or district, and what would local norms change?
• Does every school, including those with few identified students, have a plan for its most advanced learners?
• Do services match the area in which students were identified, and do they change what students learn, not only where they sit?
• Do we have a written policy on acceleration, including grade skipping, subject acceleration and early entrance?
• How do our gifted coordinator and special education team identify and serve twice-exceptional students together?
• Do we measure what students learn in gifted services, broken down by student group, and use the results to change the program?

For teachers

• Which students in my class learn new material much faster than others, including students who are quiet, disorganized, still learning English or not completing work?
• Do I know which of my students are identified as gifted, in which areas, and what services they receive?
• When a student has already mastered a unit, do I compact the curriculum and offer more advanced work rather than more of the same?
• Do I group advanced students so that they work on harder content, not only so that they work together?
• Have I referred students whose ability may be masked by a disability, or whose disability may be masked by their ability?

Serving advanced learners in every school

Gifted and talented education in the United States rests on a federal definition without a federal mandate, so what a gifted student receives depends heavily on the state and district where the student lives. Identification that relies on someone noticing a student misses many able students, especially those from low-income families, Black and Hispanic students and English learners, while universal screening and local comparisons find more of them. Acceleration and advanced content raise achievement without evidence of long-term harm, but a gifted label and a separate room without a change in what students learn do little. The districts that serve advanced learners best are likely to be those that look for them in every school, give them work that genuinely stretches them, and check, group by group, whether they are learning more as a result.

Related reading

• What Is the Difference Between Bright and Gifted?
• 10 Myths of Gifted Children
• Are Gifted Programs Elitist?
• Understanding the Debate of Acceleration or Enrichment
• Special Education Guide: IEPs, 504 Plans, IDEA and Parents’ Rights

Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.

More on Education Industry Guides and Reports