(Un)identified

Research into predictive factors in the identifying process of (presumably) gifted children and/or children with a developmental advantage by school and parents.

Roughly two out of every one hundred children have an IQ above 130: they are gifted. In order to make education more suitable for these children, it is important to know which children are involved, but identifying giftedness is not always easy.

SCALIQ, with the involvement of the Gelijke Kansen Alliantie (Equal Opportunities Alliance) of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, has conducted research into the current state of identification of cognitively strong primary school pupils by teachers and/or parents, and which variables influence this.

The full research and all results are described in the extensive research report. Below we provide an accessible summary of the research design and the most striking results.

Are you curious about the state of identification of gifted students in your country? We are happy to talk to you about the possibilities to replicate this research. 

“If parents don’t yet speak our language, will they come to us with their suspicions?”

Guidance counsellor

Purpose of the study 

The purpose of this research was to investigate how many of the cognitively strong, possibly gifted, pupils are already identified by their teacher. In addition, we wanted to know which variables influence whether or not children are identified. For example, is giftedness often missed in girls, as many experts indicate? And is it true that children with a migration background are more often underestimated?

Research design

For this research, teachers at 29 different primary schools, teaching classes of 6 to 12 year olds, were asked to indicate for each of their pupils whether there was a suspicion of a developmental advantage or giftedness, and if so by whom this suspicion was expressed. A total of 324 teachers participated, and 5371 of their pupils fell within the age range (5 to 11 years) of this study.

In addition, the teachers indicated for each pupil whether it was a boy or a girl, and whether they were Dutch Language Learners (NT2), from a non-Dutch origin and/or from a disadvantaged environment or low socio-economic status.

Only after these questions had been answered for the entire class, a screening instrument was administered to each pupil in the class by the teacher or a guidance counsellor. In the lower grades individually or in small groups, from group 4 onwards, where possible with the whole class. 

In practice, the screening instrument used does not return IQ scores: teachers only receive a signal when a student has completed the assignments, indicating whether the student scored better than 80% (or 95%) of their peers, and could perhaps use some extra challenge within the regular education program.

For this study, the measured percentile scores (the point scores) of the students were plotted on an IQ scale, so that more could be looked at than just “has this student been flagged or not”. The IQ scores of individual students were not looked at, but analyses were only performed at a group level.

Results

The results show that 48% of children with a very high IQ are known to their teacher. Of children with a high IQ, more than 40% are identified as well.

Unfortunately, this means that slightly more than half of primary school children with a very high IQ have not yet been identified.

As we close in on specific characteristics, we see major differences appear in how often gifted children have been identified.

Boy or girl

For example, more than half of the boys with a very high IQ had already been identified, while almost two-thirds of the girls with a comparable IQ were not yet identified by the teacher.

These differences are not only present in children with a very high IQ: when we compare the percentages of boys and girls identified over different measured IQ intervals, we see that more boys than girls are considered as possibly gifted across the entire range.

This while the screening instrument found just as many girls as boys with a high or very high IQ. There are hardly any differences in actual intelligence between boys and girls: the difference is purely in the teacher’s perception.

High or low socioeconomic status

Another difference that stood out is that, with an equal IQ, a larger proportion of the pupils who were indicated as coming from a disadvantaged environment or a low socioeconomic status (SES) were not yet identified compared to the proportion of children for whom this was not indicated.

Of the group of pupils with an IQ in the top 5%, two-thirds of the children with a low SES had not yet been identified as possibly gifted, while this was the case for slightly less than half of the other children in this group.

Children who grow up in a disadvantaged environment are therefore more often underestimated by their teacher than children growing up in a more opportunity-rich environment.

Migration background or not

‘Where someone’s cradle stood’ also had an effect on the chance of being identified as possibly gifted by the teacher. 

In general, children with a European background were identified more often than children with a non-Western background, and less often than children with an Asian or Indonesian background. Again, this was the case with an equal IQ.

These differences are also visible for a larger group than just the children with a very high IQ.

For example, in the group of pupils with an IQ in the top 20%, 1 in 3 with a Dutch or European background was identified by the teacher as possibly gifted, while for pupils with a non-Western migration background this was only the case for 1 in 4 children.

Once again: in terms of measured IQ, these two groups of children hardly differ from each other. The difference is therefore only in the perception of the teacher.

There are a few other variables that we have found to influence the chance of being considered possibly gifted.

Birth month

It turned out that children born in January have a greater chance of being flagged. As long as they are not accelerated, they are older and therefore often a little further in their development compared to their classmates, which means they are perceived as smarter. This while not actually being more intelligent than their own peers. When teachers compare children with each other, they often forget to take age differences into account.

The later in the year a child is born, the smaller the chance that it will be flagged as possibly gifted. Being born a month later has, in the teacher’s perception, almost the same effect as scoring 1 IQ point lower.

NT2 status

The NT2 status (NT2 meaning Dutch Language Learners) of children also has an effect. It has no major effect on teacher perception, but when you look at how often parents have communicated a suspicion of giftedness in their child to the teacher, the difference is enormous: if a child has an NT2 status, parents are much less inclined to tell the teacher that they suspect that their child may be gifted.

Whether this is because parents themselves are less likely to have such a suspicion, we cannot determine from the data, but they are certainly much less likely to pass on a possible suspicion of giftedness to the teacher. This may be due to cultural differences, but certainly also due to the language barrier: if you as a parent do not yet speak Dutch (well enough), the threshold for talking to the teacher is much higher.

The chance that parents will tell the teacher that they suspect giftedness is almost as much smaller when there is an NT2 status as when children score 20 IQ points lower.

School weight

The weight of the school children attend has no effect on identification by teachers. Teachers at schools with a high weighting (these are schools with a relatively complex student population) are just as capable of identifying gifted students as teachers at schools with a low weighting.

There is however an effect on identification of giftedness by parents: the higher the school weighting, the smaller the chance that parents will tell the teacher that they suspect giftedness. This could be because parents at these schools are less able to find their way to the teacher, but also because they might think ‘the teacher already has enough to deal with concerning his/her students, I won’t add to their workload by talking about my smart child’.

What if all those factors add up?

If you add up all the above factors, the differences can become enormous. Both for identification by teachers, as for parents passing on a suspicion of giftedness to the teacher or not.

If you are a gifted boy (with an IQ of 130 or higher), born early in the year and lucky enough to come from a well off family with no migration background, then the chance that you will be identified as such by your teacher is 60%. However, if all these odds are stacked against you (for example, if you are a gifted girl with a december birthdate, you were born maybe in Turkey or Eritrea, you do not speak Dutch very well yet and you grow up in a disadvantaged environment), then that chance is only 15%.

When looking at how often parents have communicated a suspicion of giftedness to the teacher, these differences are even greater. If you are a gifted boy (with an IQ of 130 or higher) and have all the examined characteristics going for you, the chance that your parents will let the teacher know that you are possibly gifted is 64%, while that chance if you are a gifted girl and have all the examined characteristics stacked against you is only 2%.

“As an education and giftedness specialist, what I have been seeing for years in gifted programs and other projects around giftedness is now finally confirmed for me; mainly white, well to do boys are identified as gifted. I hope that the recognition that there is much more unidentified talent around will now ensure that more careful identification and selection will take place, so that all children have equal opportunities and access to appropriate education.”

Sofie van de Waart

Educational specialist

Conclusion 

Our research has shown that the gut feeling “we don’t see every smart child” is correct. Although teachers generally view children with a higher IQ more often as potentially gifted, there are major differences in the identification of gifted boys and girls and the background of children also makes a clear difference in their chance of being identified as gifted. 

A low socioeconomic status and non-Western origin are factors that make it less likely that giftedness is identified in children. Many of these children are underestimated and will therefore receive less appropriate education. 

In addition, there are also children who are overestimated. Children who have to deal with expectations that are set too high, and who may therefore feel like they have to walk on tiptoes. That also makes appropriate education difficult: receiving too little appropriate challenge for a long period of time can be harmful, but not receiving the right support because it is mistakenly thought that problems you are dealing with are caused by giftedness, is also not beneficial. 

In addition to continuing to watch and listen to students, and following their progress in mastering the subject matter, it is therefore advisable to also use objective and language-independent identification tools and screeners.

In this manner we can ensure that every gifted child is identified. Because appropriate education starts with good identification. Both in properly supporting students with a developmental delay in certain areas, as in offering sufficient challenge to gifted children.