Of the 35 states that require schools to identify gifted students, only 9 require reporting on what happens afterward, and just 6 publish annual reports on services, according to a new analysis published by the Manhattan Institute on June 17, 2026. The report argues that gifted education rests on the same premise as special education—students are identified as needing instruction beyond the standard curriculum—but lacks similar accountability. While the debate has focused almost entirely on who gets into gifted programs, the more important question is what students actually gain once they're in them.
According to the most recent national data cited in the report, gifted and talented students in public school programs make up 6.1 percent or 3.3 million students nationwide. None of the states that track gifted programs monitor what happens at the student level. In contrast, 8.2 million students received special education services in 2024 under the federal law IDEA, each with a documented plan and measurable goals. A nationally representative study tracking students from kindergarten through fifth grade found that participating in a gifted program was associated with gains of just 2 percentile points in reading and 1 point in math. The report notes that gifted programs often become enrichment rather than accelerated instruction, with unclear goals and little systematic monitoring of student progress.
The report finds that the gifted label covers a wide range of experiences, from rigorous acceleration to occasional enrichment, with little consistency and limited evidence on effectiveness. According to author Jennifer Weber, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, "If the system never actually defined its goals for gifted education, then the lack of strong outcomes can't be evidence that advanced learners do not exist or don't deserve advanced learning opportunities. It is just evidence showing that nobody required the programs to prove they were actually working." The analysis points out that while identification systems are inconsistent and racial disparities exist in gifted enrollment, these problems don't mean gifted students don't have real needs—they mean the programs aren't being held accountable.
The report argues that the focus on admissions in places like New York City reveals that education in selective classrooms is perceived as valuable, but without knowing what students gain once they're inside. State data on individual student performance exists, but there's no requirement to use it to determine whether programs are working. Student performance on state exams isn't perfect, but the report notes it can indicate when students aren't doing as well as expected—yet programs aren't evaluated to understand why. In special education, federal law requires ongoing documentation, progress monitoring, and periodic re-evaluation. No comparable expectation exists for gifted education in most states, even though both systems identify students who need something different from the standard curriculum.
The report concludes that before deciding whether gifted programs should exist at all, policymakers should ask whether they meet the same standard applied to special education: are they well defined, properly monitored, and effective? If schools identify students who need instruction beyond the standard curriculum, they should be held to the same basic accountability expectations. The bottom line: we're debating who deserves a seat in gifted classrooms without ever checking whether those seats lead anywhere worth going.