Districts Relying More on Data to Identify Gifted Students

data-driven gifted – In classrooms from Tucson to Charleston County, gifted and talented programs are shifting away from narrow testing and selective recommendations toward a broader “talent development” approach—using data, games, and universal screening to reach more students fo

On a Wednesday afternoon in a Charleston classroom, third grade students huddle around a board game—grabbing game pieces, debating the next move, and reading out the cards that land in their hands. The point isn’t entertainment. It’s thinking.

Across the country. school districts are reworking gifted and talented programs in response to an old problem with a stubborn hold: who gets identified often doesn’t match the student population districts say they serve. The shift being tried in places like Tucson. Arizona. and Charleston County. South Carolina is moving toward “talent development. ” using data to spot students’ strengths and weaknesses and then building skills through classroom experiences—so advanced learning isn’t limited to a small. high-achieving slice of the school.

In Amphitheater Public School District in Tucson. Arizona. Vanessa Hill. the gifted education coordinator. says the current methods don’t line up with district demographics. “Something I’ve been thinking deeply about that tends to be a universal problem is that gifted identification does not match the metrics of your district. ” she says. “I’m constantly thinking of that, so our demographics can get closer. This new tactic is about exposure to critical thinking and reasoning – what does that look like. how to reason through a problem?”.

Gifted programs in practice look different from district to district—sometimes called an advanced learning program. or TAG (talented and gifted). or LEAP (Learning Enrichment Alternative Program). or REACH (Realizing Excellence through Academic and Creative Help). But educators say the programs have been reshaped repeatedly over the last few decades as questions grew around standardized tests. access. and fairness.

For years, some districts relied on selective testing, often triggered by involved parents or teacher recommendation. The result was inequity—so many places moved toward universal screening. In elementary grades, states such as Washington and Missouri made testing all students a state mandate. Screening itself evolved over time. moving from IQ tests to aptitude and ability tests. though how accurate those measures are remains up for debate.

Scott Peters. director of research consulting at NWEA. a nonprofit education assessment organization. argues that the deeper issue is inequality outside the testing room. “Society is really unequal along socioeconomic and racial and ethnic lines, and these tests are just reflecting that,” he says. “You can change tests all day long. but at the end of the day. you can’t give some kids three years of $40. 000-a-year preschool and also wonder why this kid that’s never been to school until first grade doesn’t do as well.”.

The demographics of gifted and talented programs have often skewed heavily toward white and Asian students. mirroring concerns that have played out in public debate. Zohran Mamdani. the widely-watched mayor of New York City. made phasing out gifted and talented programs part of his platform because of inequity. In a 2025 statement to the New York Times. he said: “Ultimately. my administration would aim to make sure that every child receives a high-quality early education that nurtures their curiosity and learning.”.

Yet there is no single test that can undo inequality in a child’s upbringing. Peters says that when factors such as income, race, and other equity gaps are controlled in tests, most inequities disappear. “This isn’t a factor of. ‘Oh. there are students of color scoring high. but they’re still not getting in. ’” he says. “It’s that there’s not enough students of color scoring high because of that larger societal inequality issue.”.

That understanding is part of why the shift toward “talent development” is spreading: schools are trying to strengthen skills for more students instead of building programs around students who already look strong on paper.

“Because of the baggage of the past. we’re moving toward a new perspective where we’re identifying the strengths of students — whether academic. social or emotional — versus people for a program. ” says Kristen Seward. clinical professor in gifted. talented and creative studies at Purdue University. “And I think this twist in how we approach education as gifted researchers is going to benefit everybody.”.

Instead of treating gifted identification like a gate only a few pass through. the new approach leans on enriched instruction and teacher training. Seward says many teachers have enriched curricula. improving areas like vocabulary. science. and social studies—subjects that she says have often been pushed aside in favor of standardized testing. Teachers are trained to spot strengths and respond to weaknesses. If a student has a strong vocabulary but struggles in math. Seward describes teachers adjusting math instruction by focusing on math vocabulary so the lesson matches the child’s level of understanding.

Elementary students, she says, are also playing games designed to develop quantitative, verbal, or nonverbal skills.

But she cautions against recreating a different kind of bottleneck. “I don’t want it to turn into a thing where the teacher is the gate. and if they don’t open the gate. then the students don’t get identified – which has been a problem. ” Seward says. “We have to train teachers to be talent scouts, presenting the enriched curriculum. Hopefully it’s not something additional, but something they’d naturally do in their role.”.

Charleston County School District has built an approach around that idea. Elizabeth McLaurin Uptegrove, now the assistant academic director in Charleston County School District, created a “stretch or support” system that uses games students play in classrooms.

When Uptegrove arrived in the district. she said. South Carolina used to require all second grade students to be tested for the gifted and talented program. After that year, selection changed to a nomination system. Uptegrove calls that a shift that created inequity: “Which sounds elitist. and it is. ” she says. adding that white. affluent children were three times more likely to be in the programs.

To counter that, she pushed for universal testing again for all fourth grade students. She says the change produced a sharp jump in identified students: three times as many students were identified as gifted. rising from 40 fourth graders to 150 across the district. Several schools across the country have adopted similar stretch-or-support systems.

But Uptegrove’s game-based system also hinges on data rather than observation alone. With the aptitude test, she says, there are verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal subsections. The results indicate whether a child is low or high achieving in those areas. and then students are grouped with peers at similar ability levels to play games designed to enhance targeted skills.

Uptegrove frames the games as a way to reach students at the right level of thinking without relying on the worksheet. “Typically a teacher is not very well-equipped to come up with activities or lessons that can actually reach their level of thinking ability and games do that really quickly. in a way that’s not as boring for children as a typical worksheet. ” she says. “That’s where the magic of the games comes in. We’re making rigorous, hard thinking almost irresistible so students are willing to do the activity for longer.”.

In Tucson. Hill says she first implemented Uptegrove’s game strategy across third grade classrooms in five schools—three Title 1 schools and two non-Title 1 schools. She says the schools using the strength or stretch program have higher passing rates of “proficient” or “highly proficient” scores than those that do not.

Hill links the results to engagement and critical thinking practice. “To me. it’s the difference between being a passive learner and active learner; by being able to engage in the games. it’s more active learning. ” she says. “You raise the exposure to critical thinking and are taught to apply those skills to any situation. whether it’s on an achievement test or on the playground with a friend.”.

There’s agreement among researchers and teachers that the “talent development” model is not a cure-all. For one, it can be expensive—whether that means buying games, funding teacher training, or taking time away from testing.

Hill pointed to four schools within her district that are closing this year because of financial constraints. She says the games are part of what stretches budgets. “Ordering the games is no small cost; I feel so blessed it’s that level of importance that we will find the funds. ” she says. She also described gaps the program was designed to fill. “As far as critical thinking games, yes that was missing. It is a hole we were filling. I think that while the core curriculum is doing its best, it can oftentimes be a bit surface level.”.

Uptegrove says the model is gaining attention, but funding and belief are still catching up. “There’s a long way to go in belief and funding for it.”

Peters, who has studied educational methods and practices for years, believes the shift toward talent development is a step forward. Still, he warns that lasting impact requires much more than a short gifted block. “It’s easy to have a 30-minute gifted program; it’s hard to have a second through eighth grade math development pipeline involving everyone in the school. ” he says. “And advanced learning isn’t enough of a priority for most schools.”.

In the classroom, the stakes look small at first glance—students move pieces and read cards. But the intent behind those games runs deeper: to make advanced learning less dependent on who is tested, who is recommended, and who gets seen.

gifted and talented talent development universal screening data-driven identification board games in education learning enrichment Charleston County School District Amphitheater Public School District Vanessa Hill Elizabeth McLaurin Uptegrove Kristen Seward Scott Peters NWEA