It’s not every day that you meet a student who can name all the countries in the world based on their flags. Have you ever met someone called “Brain” whose real name is Brian? What about the 5-year-old who can play advanced piano compositions and complete complex mathematical equations two gr ades above peers? What happens to Talented and Gifted Students (TAG)? They are the forgotten, underserved population. Some students come cloaked as twice exceptional or may be so bored in class that they have behavioral challenges. Connecticut is not protecting our geniuses; they are abandoned. Why this matters As a parent of a talented and gifted student, I’ve seen the devastating effects of districts failing to identify and serve these students. Likewise, I’ve witnessed bright, misunderstood individuals throw away their talents because systems didn’t support them. Personally, I’ve never been formally identified as talented and gifted, but I’ve been recognized for my creative talents, and I have one gift that is immeasurable: my intuition. Gifts aren’t always measurable, and don’t fit neatly into test scores. Also, I’ve empathized with Asian parents who experienced hate for their talented and gifted students. There’s no oversight. Let’s start with the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). Districts are required to submit talented and gifted data to EdSight. In reality, the state doesn’t check the statistics. It’s up to the district to provide accurate data, with final sign-off from the Superintendent. In EdSight , there are 202 districts; 31% identified zero talented and gifted students, and 73% served zero students in the 2025-2026 school year. Such is the case in Enfield which has a gifted and talented program and serves no students. Sadly, Connecticut identified 3% talented and gifted students and served 1.8%, which is 70% behind the national average. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights estimates that 6% of public school students are enrolled in gifted and talented programs.  Credit: CSDE As a program manager in the Connecticut State Department of Education Performance Office, managing EdSight statistics, I would see this as a red flag if districts are legally required to identify talented and gifted students. Is it possible that all these districts have no such students, or is it more likely that they aren’t providing the correct data? There’s no accountability and funding. There’s no federal funding for gifted and talented programs; they are excluded from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . Therefore, districts aren’t required to serve students even if they have a program. Federal policies like No Child Left Behind often focus more on bringing struggling students up to grade level, rather than investing in students who are excelling. As a result, districts are pooling financial resources into children with disabilities because they are required to serve them, leaving the forgotten. The term “equity” fits its context. Equity is meeting students where they are. Critics argue that talented and gifted programs under-identify minority students. Recently, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposed phasing out gifted and talented programs to reduce racial disparities. There Black and Hispanic students make up 66% of the population and represent 21% of talented and gifted participants, but this is hardly a reason to kill the pathway entirely. Asian Americans are classified as a racial minority group too. Nationally, Asian students are twice as likely to be identified. Caucasian and Asian kids represent two thirds of the gifted and talented population. So, if you want to talk about equity, let’s look at our high-needs Connecticut students. The majority of districts served zero high-needs talented and gifted students. This includes twice-exceptional learners with a disability. Also, the Washington Post warned, “Politicians tread on dangerous ground when their pursuit of equity comes at the cost of children’s opportunities.” If gifted and talented students need a more advanced curriculum, they deserve to receive that at their level. Likewise, if a student with high needs requires a little extra support, then they should receive it. That’s what equity actually means. Similarly, Psychology Today argued that “Equity shouldn’t mean holding bright minds back. Equity means giving every child the support they need to reach as high as they can.”  Identifying and serving the talented and gifted: the path forward. Districts need to move away from the “identify, not-serve” model. They must have a highly visible and accessible process for identifying and serving gifted students, using multiple measures to determine who should receive services. Del Siegle, Director of the National Center for Research on Gifted Education at the University of Connecticut, stated: “We need to do a better job of identifying kids for these services, and then we need to do a better job providing these services.” More importantly, we should build systems that help kids nurture their gifts and talents, even those that are not measurable.  Connecticut is not protecting our geniuses; they are abandoned. Danielle Brown lives in Enfield. ...read more read less