NAGC25 Session Review- The Past, Present, and Future of Identification: Reframing for Purpose and Equity

This session by Amy Lynne Shelton, PhD and Kathryn Thompson, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth was a great reminder for gifted educators about the connection between a strong gifted identification system and the gifted program to which it is connected.

In gifted education, identification is often misunderstood. Critics ask whether it’s fair for some students to move ahead, or whether we should focus more on learners who are behind. These questions come from a standards-based mindset where success means reaching the same benchmark at the same time. But this narrow view obscures the reality that many advanced learners coast, mask their needs, or disengage because they aren’t given opportunities to grow.

A more useful frame centers on growth. Achievement means every child is learning. Advanced learning means a student can grow at a faster pace or explore deeper content. Gifted identification, then, becomes a tool to match learners to opportunities—not a reward, label, or gatekeeper.

With today’s long history of assessments from early intelligence testing to creativity measures, dynamic assessments, portfolios, and above-grade-level tools, we now have more options than ever. But the heart of modern identification lies in framing for purpose and equity. Before selecting any test or tool, schools must ask: What is the purpose of this measure? What program or support will follow? Many systems still face persistent disproportionality, and one size never fits all. Purposeful identification requires aligning tools with intended outcomes, selecting assessments that reduce or eliminate bias, and making sure the tools and outcomes are aligned to the advanced learning programs we will offer.

Looking ahead, the field must continue to refine practice. This means keeping a clear lens on what works when, where, and for which students. It means developing new approaches that rely less on opportunity-dependent knowledge and more on fundamental cognitive skills. It means expanding dynamic assessments that capture problem solving in action and using course-embedded assessments and rubrics to observe readiness as it unfolds. And as AI tools mature, educators can use them to sort patterns, surface inequities, and support—not replace—professional judgment.

The take-home message is simple: No single tool will ever identify every advanced learner. Testing has value, but only as part of a larger body of evidence. In addition, gifted identification and programming must be designed together with clear goals and a commitment to equity.

When we combine purpose, thoughtful assessment, and responsive programming, we move closer to an advanced learning ecosystem that truly serves all students in a 21st-century landscape (my next session review expands on this idea!).

As I work with my team on revising our gifted education plan for our school division, we will closely audit our identification tools as well as how they each connect to our program offerings. Have you done a similar audit before? What tips do you have for us? Share them in the comments below! ~Ann