Yet identification has still retained its prominence as one of the first major steps in program development (VanTassel-Baska & Baska, 2020) for several reasons. One of these is its power in finding the most promising students to be served in different domains. With the advent of Talent Searches at major universities nationwide, the field could now efficiently find high achieving students who represented a continuum of ability in verbal and mathematical areas who scored at the 95–99^th percentile on grade level achievement measures but who also demonstrated advanced cognitive ability in these subject areas 2–6 years beyond their placement. Thus the use of achievement tools in concert with off-level aptitude measures became popular for finding students who were gifted in those areas. Because the program was voluntary and external to the school district, it never gained ground as a universal approach to identification even though 100,000 seventh graders are still assessed each year and provided programming through multiple options both online and in person.

In addition to the power of identification for finding top learners in math and English language arts, systems have also been developed that prove to be useful in finding students strong in the cluster areas of science and spatial areas (see Lubinski, 2016) leading to programs in robotics, LEGOs, and STEM that address these types of abilities more directly. Arts abilities are assessed through multiple measures, including a portfolio of products and performances and teacher recommendation. Less common have been protocols for identifying leadership as a talent area separate from advanced content indicators. More routinely, school districts have selected the content areas for learning within which they wish to serve the gifted—typically ELA and math (Siegle et al., 2016).

Finally, identification has been an important tool in designing programs that match the specialized abilities of students found in a particular locale. A school district that has a cluster of math whizzes at 4^th grade clearly needs a set of curriculum experiences planned along the continuum from 4^th grade through high school to ensure their optimal educational opportunity. Knowing who and where they are as well as how advanced they are has become important planning data for program developers. Thus identification has become the trigger for further program development across the sequence of schooling years.

Over the past 40 years, learning assessments have assumed greater importance at the national, state, and local levels. Since the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), states have demanded more rigorous expectations and measurable benchmarks for student achievement. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and the subsequent Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) have required students to be taught to high academic standards that prepare them to succeed in college and careers and have mandated statewide assessments that measure students’ progress toward those high standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Moreover, ESSA requires states to submit plans that improve the skills of teachers, principals, or other school leaders to identify students with specific learning needs (e.g., children with disabilities, English learners, students who are gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels) and provide instruction based on the needs of these students (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). In their plans, some of the states have described methods for meeting the specific needs of gifted students that incorporate differentiated assessments. For example, the Kansas Department of Education (2018) uses a Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) framework to identify and address the needs of all students, including those who are gifted and talented. Using the MTSS framework, educators use data to monitor academic, behavioral, and social emotional learning needs and make decisions that inform instructional decision making. The Illinois Department of Education (2017) also emphasizes supporting the social and emotional development as well as differentiated instruction. Similarly, the South Dakota Department of Education (2018) supports schools in implementing individualized education opportunities described as Mass Customized Learning. Using formative assessments, teachers are encouraged to allow students to work at their own pace to address their academic needs and interests. Under ESSA, all states are required to submit plans to the federal government, showing how they will assess students’ progress, with most states explicitly addressing how educators should be supported in providing effective, differentiated instruction to gifted learners (Kaul & Davis, 2018). States and local districts now have opportunities to develop and implement assessments that identify and examine the learning progress of gifted students.

The last area of assessment that has gained prominence as programs have developed and grown is program evaluation. How do we know that the program is doing what it was designed to do? How do we assess stakeholder satisfaction with the program? How do we know that all parts of the program (e.g., identification, instruction) are working effectively? These questions can only be answered through an annual assessment of the operational gifted program. Thus the importance of evaluation as a part of the program development mechanism has been shown (VanTassel-Baska & Hubbard, 2019). Its importance is at least three-fold in providing the following:

All of these reasons provide an important purpose for regular evaluations of gifted programs to be conducted. Improvement of gifted programs is not possible in the absence of data that provide educators with the knowledge of current practice. Best practice may be assessed by using the national standards developed for the field and analyzing any given program against those standards.