When School Isn't New: Why Early Identification of Gifted Children Matters
By Dr. Jennie Ladner-Jones, Early Childhood Network Chair
For some gifted children, the problem with starting school is not that school is too difficult. It is that school is not difficult enough.
Imagine a five-year-old getting ready for the first day of kindergarten. The child is excited. There will be new things to learn, new questions to answer, and new experiences to explore. Then the child gets to school and discovers something unexpected: much of what the teacher is introducing is already familiar. The child may already read the books, understand the mathematics, know the science concepts, or ask questions that go well beyond the curriculum.
What happens next matters. If we recognize the child's advanced abilities, we can understand the child differently and provide an appropriate educational response. If we do not, we may simply describe the child as bright, curious, advanced, or a fast learner and expect the child to wait. For some gifted children, waiting has consequences.
Giftedness Does Not Begin When We Identify It
Giftedness does not begin when a school system identifies it. Identification gives educators information about a child's abilities and educational needs.
Researchers have documented advanced characteristics in young children and examined identification during the preschool and early elementary years for decades. Research has demonstrated that giftedness can be identified during the preschool and kindergarten years. Pfeiffer and Petscher (2008), for example, found evidence supporting the use of the Gifted Rating Scales–Preschool/Kindergarten Form to identify young children with advanced intellectual and academic abilities.
This does not mean that one test score should determine whether a child is gifted. A sound identification process can include cognitive assessment, achievement data, observations, family information, and other evidence.
The question of how to identify young gifted children is not new. What is changing is the amount of attention being given to the issue. In 2024–2025, the National Association for Gifted Children convened an Early Childhood Task Force to examine questions surrounding advanced development and talent in the early childhood years. In 2025, NAGC followed that work by establishing an Early Childhood Working Group focused on identification, curriculum and instruction, and resources for young gifted learners and their families.
That renewed attention matters because early identification remains inconsistent. We should not be afraid to identify gifted children because they are young. The answer is to look early, identify thoughtfully, and respond appropriately.
Young Gifted Children Can Look Different
Young gifted children do not necessarily look like older gifted students. Tucker and Hafenstein (1997) studied gifted children ages four through six and documented characteristics including intense curiosity, probing questions, concentration, advanced problem solving, and theoretical thinking. Their work also illustrates the considerable variation among young gifted children. A child may demonstrate remarkable reasoning or vocabulary while developing at a more typical pace in other areas.
The Illinois State Board of Education's Diversity and Equity in Illinois: Responding to Differences within the Gifted Population (Choice et al., 2010) similarly addresses gifted preschoolers and describes young children who demonstrate remarkable abilities alongside more typical development in other areas. The publication also discusses the importance of enriched learning opportunities and multiple measures when identifying and educating young gifted children.
This is an important message for practitioners: A young child can be developmentally young and intellectually advanced at the same time. Developmentally appropriate does not have to mean intellectually limited.
Why Identification Matters
Early identification does more than tell us that a child is advanced. It can connect that child to gifted education expertise, specialized programming, appropriate assessment, and informed decisions about curriculum, pacing, depth, complexity, and acceleration when appropriate.
Without identification, a young gifted child may simply be described as “ahead.” But ahead of what? And what happens when the child reaches the limits of what the regular classroom curriculum provides?
Differentiation can be an important instructional response, but it should not become a substitute for gifted identification and gifted education. A classroom teacher may differentiate a lesson because a child has already mastered the material. Gifted education can provide a sustained educational response to advanced learning needs. Young gifted children deserve opportunities to learn at an appropriate level of challenge, and educators need enough information about their abilities to make those decisions well.
What If We Wait?
Underachievement is complicated. It does not have one cause, and not every gifted child who experiences insufficient challenge will become an underachiever. Nevertheless, several researchers give us reasons to pay attention early.
Sylvia Rimm's work on gifted underachievement emphasizes prevention during the early years and cautions that conditions contributing to underachievement can begin before formal schooling (Rimm, n.d.). Her work shifts attention from identifying underachievement after it becomes visible to considering how educational experiences may affect gifted children's long-term achievement. Mooij (2013) similarly discusses the possibility of enforced underachievement as early as preschool. Del Siegle's work provides an important caution: gifted underachievement is complex and can have multiple contributing factors. It should not simply be interpreted as a motivation problem or addressed with a single intervention (Siegle, 2018).
We should also acknowledge what we do not know. Walsh et al. (2012) reviewed research on educational interventions for intellectually gifted children in early childhood and found significant limitations in the research base. That should make us careful—not passive. Limited research should encourage better research and better practice, not become a reason to overlook gifted children.
Early Identification Does Not Mean Early Entry
Advocating for early identification does not mean advocating for acceleration for every young gifted child. Some children may need greater depth. Others may need advanced content in a particular subject, faster pacing, specialized gifted instruction, or a combination of approaches. For some, acceleration may be appropriate; for others, it may not.
The point of identification is not to decide that every gifted child should move faster. The point is to understand what the child needs.
Colorado provides one example of a state that has created formal pathways for recognizing highly advanced young gifted children. Colorado requires gifted identification and services beginning at age four and permits participating administrative units to offer Early Access, allowing highly advanced four-year-olds to enter kindergarten early and highly advanced five-year-olds to enter first grade early when a comprehensive body of evidence supports the placement (Colorado Department of Education, n.d.).
Importantly, Colorado's rules do not suggest that early entry is appropriate for every gifted child. Early access is intended for a relatively small number of highly advanced children who require comprehensive academic acceleration.
Early identification gives educators and families the information needed to consider the full range of educational options. For one child, that may mean advanced content or specialized gifted instruction. For another, it may mean greater depth and complexity. For a highly advanced child, early entry may be appropriate. Colorado demonstrates that recognizing young gifted children does not require treating every young child the same.
We Cannot Let Policy Differences Become a Reason to Wait
States differ in how they define giftedness, identify students, and provide gifted education. Some have clearly established processes; others have less statewide guidance. Those differences present challenges, but they should not lead us to conclude that early identification is unnecessary. We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
A state may have an imperfect identification system. A district may have limited gifted programming. A school may not have a formal preschool gifted program. None of those circumstances means that gifted children do not exist, and none should become a reason to stop looking.
Most importantly, we should not require a young gifted child to demonstrate boredom, disengagement, or underachievement before deciding that the child deserves to be identified and appropriately served.
Our Responsibility Is to Notice
Practitioners can learn the characteristics of young gifted children, document advanced learning, communicate observations with families, and become familiar with gifted identification procedures in their state and district.
Most importantly, educators should refer children for gifted screening or evaluation when their demonstrated abilities warrant consideration. We should not wait for a child to become bored. We should not wait for a child to disengage. We should not wait for a child to underachieve.
A young gifted child does not become gifted when a school system finally identifies the child. The ability was already there. The questions were there. The curiosity was there. The rapid learning was there.
Our responsibility is to notice. Our responsibility is to identify. And once we identify, our responsibility is to respond.
Because for some gifted children, kindergarten is supposed to be the beginning of school. It should not be the beginning of waiting.
References and Resources
Choice, P., Fiedler, E. D., & Gallagher, R. M. (2010). Diversity and equity in Illinois: Responding to differences within the gifted population. Illinois State Board of Education.
Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.). Gifted education. https://www.cde.state.co.us/gt
Mooij, T. (2013). Designing instruction and learning for cognitively gifted pupils in preschool and primary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(6), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.696727
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Identifying young gifted children using the Gifted Rating Scales–Preschool/Kindergarten Form. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207311055
Rimm, S. (n.d.). Creativity and underachievement. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477216.pdf
Siegle, D. (2018). Understanding underachievement. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 285–297). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_16
Tucker, B., & Hafenstein, N. L. (1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629704100302
Walsh, R. L., Kemp, C. R., Hodge, K. A., & Bowes, J. M. (2012). Searching for evidence-based practice: A review of the research on educational interventions for intellectually gifted children in the early childhood years. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(2), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212440610
