Ms. Rivera teaches a busy Year 8 English class. On any given day, her classroom hums with energy—and challenges.

There’s Jordan, an English Language Learner who’s still decoding Shakespeare. He needs sentence stems, vocabulary support, and constant encouragement. There’s Maya, who has a diagnosed learning disability; her processing speed is slower, and Ms. Rivera modifies almost every task to fit her needs. And then there’s Caleb, who struggles with self-regulation—he often needs behavior breaks and one-on-one check-ins just to stay focused.

And then, there’s Zoe.
Zoe reads three grade levels above her peers. She writes with nuance and insight that sometimes surprises even Ms. Rivera. She finishes assignments quickly and quietly. She never complains. She’s often left with a book in the corner, waiting.

Zoe is gifted and talented.
But in the bustle of everyday differentiation and classroom triage, Ms. Rivera finds herself spending less time planning or checking in with Zoe. “She’s fine,” Ms. Rivera tells herself. “She’s already ahead.”

But here’s the problem:
Zoe isn’t being challenged. She’s compliant, but bored. Her love of literature is slowly dimming. She’s starting to disengage – not outwardly, like Caleb, but inwardly. She’s writing less. Asking fewer questions. Her potential is flattening under the weight of invisibility. She is underachieving.

Why are GT students not always given the support they need?

Teachers often operate in survival mode, giving more attention to students with visible needs or disruptive behaviors. As well, there is often a systemic assumption that GT students are “already okay.” They will be “alright” without the support that other students need to meet grade expectations. Finally, many teachers lack time, resources, or training to differentiate upward – to provide true intellectual stretch.

What are the consequences?

In the long-term, GT students may under-perform relative to their potential, especially if they belong to historically marginalized groups. GT students like Zoe can become underachievers or disengaged learners. They may miss out on developing resilience, work ethic, or creative risk-taking if everything is too easy.

Challenges

Time Constraints

One of the most commonly reported barriers is the lack of time for planning. Teachers struggle to deliver differentiated lessons for gifted and talented (GT) students. Teachers often face time constraints. These constraints limit their ability to replace assignments. They also hinder their efforts to extend regular assignments with more challenging work (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). In secondary schools, heavy content schedules and preparation for high-stakes tests can leave little room for enrichment. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) observed that a “lack of planning time” is a significant obstacle. It affects differentiation in the regular classroom. Consequently, even when teachers recognize that certain students need more advanced material, they may struggle to find time. Designing such activities becomes challenging. Research has shown that, in practice, many teachers make only minor modifications for gifted learners. These limited changes occur due to time pressures (Johnsen & Kaul, 2019). Limited time to plan individualized tasks often causes GT students to remain under-challenged. Teachers must prioritize covering the required curriculum for the whole class.

Limited Training and Support

Many secondary teachers have minimal formal training in gifted education. This lack of training hinders their ability to effectively scaffold instruction for advanced learners. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) identified “lack of knowledge for modifying the curriculum” as a key barrier. They also noted the “lack of relevant pedagogical skills.” These are essential for differentiating for gifted students. In other words, without training in gifted pedagogy, teachers may not know how to adapt content depth. They may struggle with complexity or pacing for high-ability learners. Research suggests that teachers support the idea of differentiation for gifted learners. However, they struggle to implement these practices. The struggles are due to limited professional development. They also face issues with scarce resources and rigid curricula (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). When teachers lack preparation, they may default to teaching all students the same way. Teachers might also rely on personal judgment rather than evidence-based strategies. Indeed, a qualitative study by Szymanski and Shaff (2013) found that teachers often use personal beliefs. They compensate for their lack of training in identifying and accommodating gifted learners. This compensatory approach can be inconsistent and may fail to adequately challenge gifted students. Improving teacher training and ongoing support in gifted education is crucial. Without it, even well-intentioned educators feel ill-equipped to stretch their advanced learners.

Classroom Diversity and Neurodiversity Challenges

Secondary classrooms are typically heterogeneous, encompassing a wide range of abilities, learning profiles, and cognitive differences. While this neurodiversity enriches the classroom, it also challenges teachers to meet everyone’s needs simultaneously. In mixed-ability classes, educators often devote more attention to students who require academic remediation. They focus on students with diagnosed learning differences. This can unintentionally result in less attention to gifted and talented (GT) students. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) note that “responding to diverse populations” is an area in which teachers often feel unprepared. Adjusting lessons for a broad ability span is challenging. This is especially true when it includes students with ADHD, dyslexia, autism spectrum disorders, and twice-exceptional learners. Teachers may lack strategies to extend learning for students who need enrichment. They may also lack strategies for scaffolding those who need additional support.

This challenge is compounded by the frequent under-identification of gifted students within neurodiverse populations. Students who are twice-exceptional (2e) are both gifted and have a learning disability. They often go unrecognized. This is because their disability can mask their strengths or vice versa. Without clear identification and support, 2e students may sit in general education classrooms. They receive neither the academic challenge they need nor the accommodations they require. Szymanski and Shaff (2013) observed that teachers often rely on personal beliefs and surface-level behaviors to identify giftedness. This can lead to the exclusion of students who do not “look gifted” in traditional ways. This implies that without targeted training, teachers might overlook high-potential learners. Atypical behavior, inconsistent academic performance, or social-emotional challenges could contribute to this oversight.

In diverse classrooms, gifted students may receive little specialized attention. This especially affects those that include a broad range of neurodiverse learners. Gifted students who are not overtly high-achieving or compliant may be overlooked. Ensuring equity in gifted education requires educators to be trained. They must recognize and nurture giftedness across the full spectrum of neurodiversity. This includes students who are not already flagged or do not fit traditional academic molds.

Research-Based Solutions

Addressing Time Constraints

To overcome time barriers, researchers recommend curriculum compacting. This approach streamlines instruction for students who demonstrate mastery. It frees up time for enrichment and extension activities (Reis & Renzulli, 2011). This strategy allows teachers to maintain pace with required curricula while differentiating for gifted students. Additionally, VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) advocate for diagnostic–prescriptive teaching. Teachers use pre-assessment data to tailor instruction to student readiness levels. By identifying what students already know, teachers can avoid reteaching content and instead invest time in creating meaningful extensions. Moreover, school-wide structures can help. Flexible grouping and independent study contracts can offload some planning pressure. They do this by embedding differentiation into the routine of the classroom (VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005).

Improving Teacher Training and Support

Professional development focused on gifted pedagogy is critical. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) emphasize that teachers need explicit training in how to differentiate for advanced learners. This includes increasing complexity, adjusting pacing, and using acceleration. Regular, job-embedded professional learning that includes model lessons, coaching, and collaboration opportunities has been shown to increase teacher confidence and implementation of gifted strategies (Missett et al., 2014). Szymanski and Shaff (2013) further suggest that teacher education programs and ongoing PD should address implicit bias. They should also address assumptions about giftedness, particularly when identifying giftedness in students who are neurodiverse. This is crucial for students who may not exhibit typical “gifted” behaviors. Building teacher capacity in gifted identification and differentiation helps move teachers from relying on subjective impressions to implementing structured, equitable practices.

Supporting Classroom Diversity and Neurodiversity

In neurodiverse classrooms, the identification and support of twice-exceptional (2e) students is particularly challenging. To address this, Missett et al. (2014) recommend using formative assessment and interest-based learning to better capture students’ potential and engagement. Strategies like tiered assignments, choice boards, and project-based learning provide differentiation. They cater to both readiness and interest lines. This approach supports a wide range of learning profiles. VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh (2005) also suggest using interdisciplinary thematic units. These units offer multiple entry points and extension tasks. They help meet the diverse needs of neurodiverse learners, including 2e students. Schools should provide collaborative planning time for general and special educators. This time is for co-designing supports that challenge and accommodate students simultaneously. Creating systems that value strengths is crucial. They need to be balanced alongside support needs. This ensures that 2e students are both identified and served appropriately (Szymanski & Shaff, 2013).

Final Thoughts

Zoe’s story is not unique. In classrooms like Ms. Rivera’s, gifted students often become invisible. This is not because they lack potential. It happens because their needs are easy to overlook amid the urgent demands of everyday teaching. Teachers are stretched thin by time. They are constrained by rigid curricula. They are also undertrained in gifted pedagogy. As a result, the brightest minds can quietly dim.

The good news is that the path forward is not out of reach. Research points to clear, actionable strategies. They include curriculum compacting, diagnostic–prescriptive teaching, and formative assessment. Professional learning focuses on recognizing giftedness in all its forms, including among neurodiverse learners. These strategies do not require teachers to do more—they require us to do things differently. See Cindi Hogwood’s website HAGT Education Resources and Links for more strategies and information.

Equity in education means more than lifting the floor; it also means raising the ceiling. Gifted and talented students deserve to be seen, stretched, and supported just as much as any other learner. When we create classrooms that intentionally challenge every student—including the Zoes—we not only nurture excellence, we redefine it.

Join the Conversation

It’s time to reframe how we talk about equity in our classrooms. We should view it not just as a means of support, but as a commitment to challenge. Gifted and talented students deserve more than passive recognition. This is especially true for those who are neurodiverse or quietly excelling in the background. They deserve purposeful engagement.

References

Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. P. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214541326

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2011). Challenging gifted and talented learners with a continuum of research-based intervention strategies. In M. A. Bray & T. J. Kehle (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of School Psychology (pp. 448–466). Oxford University Press.

Szymanski, T., & Shaff, T. (2013). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students. Gifted Children, 6(1), Article 1. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol6/iss1/1

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5