Gifted Education Is Special Education. It’s Time to Start Treating It That Way

Via NYC Mayor’s Office

Public education already recognizes that some students need something meaningfully different from the standard curriculum. In special education, that premise comes with clear expectations: identified students receive defined services that come with measurable goals and ongoing review. Gifted education rests on a similar premise—students are identified as needing instruction beyond the standard curriculum—but it lacks similar accountability.

The debate around gifted education has focused almost entirely on identification: who gets the label, which tests to use, and whether to rely on IQ scores, teacher referrals, or universal screening. In places like New York City, this has expanded into a broader debate over whether gifted programs should exist at all.

What receives far less attention is what happens after students are identified. Gifted programs often become enrichment rather than accelerated instruction, with unclear goals and little systematic monitoring of student progress.

A recent New York Magazine article questioning ‘giftedness’ raises legitimate concerns about such programs. Identification systems are, in fact, inconsistent. There are racial disparities in gifted enrollment. A nationally representative study tracking students from kindergarten through fifth grade found that participating in a gifted program was associated with gains of just 2 percentile points in reading and 1 point in math.

But the article draws the wrong conclusion.

If the system never actually defined its goals for gifted education, then the lack of strong outcomes can’t be evidence that advanced learners do not exist or don’t deserve advanced learning opportunities. It is just evidence showing that nobody required the programs to prove they were actually working. 

Is gifted education worth it?

The gifted label covers a wide range of experiences, from rigorous acceleration to occasional enrichment, with little consistency and limited evidence on effectiveness.

According to the most recent national data, gifted and talented students in public school programs make up 6.1 percent or 3.3 million of students nationwide. What kind of education are these children receiving? Could it be better?

We do not know. According to the most recent State of the States in Gifted Education report, of the 35 states that require schools to identify gifted students, only 9 require reporting on what happens afterward, and just 6 publish annual reports on services. None track what happens at the student level.

In special education, meanwhile, federal law requires ongoing documentation and progress monitoring, as well as periodic re-evaluation. In 2024, 8.2 million students received special education services because of the federal law IDEA, each with a documented plan and measurable goals.

New York’s Admissions Obsession

New York City’s heated debate over who gets into a selective classroom is an admission that education in such environments and the associated outcomes are perceived as worth the effort and expense for students and their families to obtain.

But while the debate has centered on who gets a seat, the more important question is what students actually gain from occupying one. Which schools are offering enrichment rather than accelerated education? Which of the two should be the goal of the program? Which has a bigger impact on student performance?

We have limited insight into what happens when a student enters the classroom and whether they are getting more than someone in a typical general education setting.

State data on the individual student exists. What is missing is the requirement to use the data to determine and report whether and how well the program is working. Student performance as measured by state exams is not perfect, but it can be used to indicate that some students may not be doing as well as expected. However, we do not know why because the programs are not evaluated.

What Accountability Should Look Like

In special education, accountability is not optional. No comparable expectation exists for gifted education in most states. If schools identify students who need instruction beyond the standard curriculum, they should be held to the same basic accountability expectations.

The New York Magazine piece asks whether giftedness is a myth. But in every other area of education, we do not judge the existence of student needs based on poorly defined programs.

We judge the quality of the services.

Before deciding whether programs should exist at all, we should ask whether gifted education meets the same standard applied to special education: is it well defined, properly monitored, and effective?