Public debate over gifted education tends to focus on fairness. Who gets to be called “gifted” and what sort of extras do they receive? Nationwide, more than 12 percent of Asian students and almost 8 percent of white students are enrolled in gifted programs compared to 3 percent of Black students and 4 percent of Hispanic students—differences that have prompted several large districts to rethink their gifted offerings. Seattle Public Schools is weighing plans to sunset its gifted and talented programs in coming years, citing concerns about equity. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s campaign platform prominently featured scaling back early elementary gifted offerings in the nation’s largest school district, responding to concerns that they exacerbate economic inequality.
Underlying these debates are fundamental questions about the impacts of gifted services. Could gifted programs address, rather than amplify, these gaps? When disadvantaged students are identified for gifted services, do they benefit from participation? Which students benefit the most?
To find out, we studied these questions in a large, urban district in Florida whose gifted program uses broad screening and IQ-based eligibility to identify and serve disadvantaged students. We focus our analysis on students with similarly high IQs who are from low-income families or are English language learners and compare a range of outcomes for those who score just above and below the qualifying score. We find that disadvantaged boys in the gifted program are 60 percent more likely to enroll in college compared to disadvantaged boys with similar IQs who miss the cutoff and do not receive gifted services. Disadvantaged girls in the gifted program are 6 percent more likely to graduate on time and enroll in college than their peers who do not receive gifted services, though this difference is not statistically significant.
What accounts for these differences? Interestingly, being in the gifted program has no effect on measures of cognitive skills such as standardized tests in grades 6–8 or PSAT scores in high school, even though students are placed in separate gifted classes in elementary school and receive extra support and guidance throughout middle and high school. Rather, the program’s largest impacts are on markers of “non-cognitive skills”—measures that capture student behavior, like enrolling in rigorous classes and getting good grades. Disadvantaged boys in the gifted program are about 30 percentage points more likely to complete algebra 1 before 9th grade and take twice as many AP classes in high school as their non-participating peers with similar IQs. More generally, throughout middle and high school, they select classes that place them with higher-performing peers. Moreover, despite having a more challenging curriculum and higher-achieving classmates, these boys often earn better grades than boys who just miss the cutoff for eligibility. Math GPAs for disadvantaged boys in the gifted program are roughly 0.4 points higher on a 4.0 scale, rising from roughly a B-minus to a B-plus.
To better understand these effects, we compare students’ outcomes based on a marker of “non-cognitive skills” in 3rd grade—their self-reported enjoyment of learning in school. Here, we find the program’s largest impacts among children who reported the lowest enjoyment of learning. Disadvantaged boys who report low enjoyment of learning in 3rd grade are more than seven times as likely to graduate high school on time and enroll in college if they participate in the gifted program. Disadvantaged girls with low reported enjoyment of learning are 50 percent more likely to graduate on time and go to college if they are in the gifted program.
Our study highlights aspects of a gifted program that benefit socioeconomically disadvantaged students. While prior research has focused on whether gifted programs affect cognitive measures like test scores, we show the importance of supporting non-cognitive development. We also show that this has outsized positive effects for boys, though outcomes for all students improve. Establishing eligibility for gifted programs with IQ testing, rather than relying solely on behavior-based metrics like grades or teacher recommendations, appears to be a powerful way to identify and support less-engaged boys with strong academic potential.
