Imagine two second-graders in the same school. Student A is always paying attention, raises their hand to answer every question the teacher asks, comes to class prepared, does and turns in their homework every night, scores well on every test and has an A in math. Student B appears to spend much of the school day daydreaming, almost never volunteers to answer a question, and when called on talks about how the problem is related to one they did last week instead of answering the question asked, rarely comes to class with a pencil and paper, regularly turns in incomplete homework assignments, only answers some of the questions on the test (often the most challenging ones) and has a B- in math. When asked which of their students should be tested for the gifted program, teachers are generally good at identifying Student A. However, teachers typically miss Student B, who may not be engaged with the instruction, homework and tests because they already know the material and find the repetition boring and may appear less prepared for class because they have had to deal with more adversity in their everyday life. For example, they could be part of the 53% of students receiving free and reduced lunch, or they could be one of the 22% of students who speak a different language at home, almost a quarter of those qualifying for additional help learning English at school. Importantly, Student B may still have the potential to compete with Student A, and if given the education they need, they can thrive as well.

          This difference, the detriments of trying to identify students’ potential based only on subjectivity or some proxy of their current grades or class performance, shows why Universal Screening is necessary. Universal Screening means what its name implies; it is testing the potential or ability of every single student in a given grade, giving everyone the same opportunity to be identified for the gifted program, and taking out any bias from teachers or achievement-based test scores, which often reflect, in part, how well-prepared a student is for school. A 2016 study from Florida found that when a school switched from teacher referrals, allowing teachers to select which students could be tested for gifted identification, and instead all students were tested with an ability assessment, traditionally underrepresented groups achieved similar potential scores and should thus be identified as gifted, erasing much of the bias that had been present previously.

          The present policy in some schools of teacher referrals is horribly flawed. That same 2016 study found that racial minorities, students on free and reduced lunch, and girls overall were consistently underidentified, depriving them of the same services their peers received. The overall gifted identification rate rose from 3.3% to 5.5% after all second graders were screened, without lowering eligibility standards. The effects were much larger for traditionally underrepresented students: identification among disadvantaged students rose from 1.4% to 4.3%, and the study estimated that universal screening added about 300 gifted students, 80% of whom were low-income or English-learning students. Overall, the gifted rate among disadvantaged students increased by 180%, Hispanic identification increased by 130%, and Black identification increased by 80%. Just as importantly, the newly identified students had similar IQ scores to students found through the old referral system, showing that universal screening did not lower standards; it found students the old system had missed. This is worsened further by the fact that most of our nation’s schools run on tracts, meaning students are placed into certain math or english classes as early as middle school in some districts, and moving up into the higher tract is incredibly difficult.

          According to the National Association for Gifted Children, as of 2023, only 12 states required Universal Screening. And of those 12 states, only 7 states provide funding to do so. However, those stats are self-reported, and after taking a closer look into de facto school policies, even those figures are overly optimistic.

          It is important to keep in mind that Universal Screening on its own does not fully fix disparities in gifted identification. Even as young as second grade, achievement gaps are already formed, and students with access to resources score better on standardized tests and are identified off that merit, leaving students with lesser resources out. But it is still our best bet to make gifted education more equal and the United States needs it.

          Universal screening will not erase every inequality in gifted education, but it changes the most important first step: who gets the chance to be seen. Gifted education should not depend on which students’ teachers happen to notice. If schools are serious about finding exceptional ability, they have to look for it in every student.

References

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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113

Hodges, J. (2025). 2022–2023 state of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/nagc/State_of_the_States/2022-23_State_of_States_Repo.pdf