7 November 2025
Even non-gifted children don’t always make full use of their talents
A student who is “just doing fine” in math class can still be underachieving. That’s what recent research by Mazrekaj and colleagues (2022), conducted with primary school children in Flanders, has shown. The study looked not only at the grades students achieved, but also at what they should realistically be able to accomplish based on their cognitive abilities. And that’s where it gets interesting: underachievement turns out to be much more common and widespread than previously thought—not only among gifted children, but just as much among their classmates.
Underachievement turns out to be far more widespread than previously assumed: on average, 1 in 4 students does not reach the level that could reasonably be expected based on their cognitive potential — and this applies not only to gifted children, but to all students.
A student may earn high grades and still perform far below their actual capabilities; underachievement only becomes visible when you look beyond results and also consider motivation, learning habits, engagement, and the level of challenge.
Contextual factors such as socioeconomic status, class size, teacher motivation, and school characteristics all influence how much learning progress a child makes; underachievement is therefore not an individual issue, but a systemic and environmental one.
Who and what was studied?
While most research on underachievement tends to focus on measuring low performance, this study takes a different perspective. Using SIBO data, the researchers looked not only at academic results, but at the gap between potential (measured with an IQ test in third grade) and outcome (math performance at the end of each school year). And this was done not only for gifted students, but for every child—including those with lower cognitive potential.
What stands out is the method used: stochastic frontier analysis (SFA). This econometric technique, originally developed to measure business efficiency, was cleverly applied to the educational context. This allowed the researchers to map out how much “learning gain” a student achieved in relation to their cognitive potential.
Potential versus outcome
Previous research on underachievement has produced widely varying figures. Depending on the method, estimates ranged from as low as 9% underachievers (Schick & Phillipson, 2009) to nearly 49% (Reis et al., 2004). A review study by White et al. (2018) shows clearly how strongly these differences depend on the chosen measurement method.
This is because the most commonly used ways to identify underachievers often fall short. Teacher or parent nominations turn out to be unreliable, as gifted underachievers in particular are often overlooked. Other approaches, such as having peers make judgments or asking students to self-report, also don’t work well: especially at a young age, children are rarely aware of their true potential.
In this study, a more objective model was used: alongside the gap between potential (IQ score in third grade) and outcome (annual math performance), the researchers also included other variables. They took into account the student’s gender, background, and socioeconomic status, as well as school and school-year characteristics. Teacher-related factors were also considered, such as gender, experience, effort, and motivation, and even class size. By including all these factors together in the analysis, the researchers were able to create a much more nuanced and reliable picture of underachievement—across all students, not just the strongest or weakest.
What did the study find?
Underachievement is widespread: on average, 23.5% of students perform below their potential. But that average hides big differences: for some children it’s as little as 9% below their potential, while others fall as much as 81% short. This means there’s a long “tail” of students who perform far below what they are capable of.
Not only in gifted students: the top 10% most cognitively able students do underachieve slightly more often than their classmates, but the difference is small and not statistically significant. Underachievement occurs just as much among typically developing students.
The role of context: factors such as gender, socioeconomic status (SES), background, and teacher characteristics (experience, effort, and motivation) all influence how much students are able to reach their potential. Boys, students from disadvantaged families, and students with a migration background run a slightly higher risk of underachieving, though again not significantly. Teacher support, expertise, and motivation, on the other hand, make a measurable—and positive—difference.
Class size as a balancing act: the analysis shows that underachievement is lowest at a class size of about 20 students. Larger classes go hand in hand with more underachievement, but interestingly, so do very small classes: the smaller the group below that threshold, the more underachievement reappears.
Development over the years: underachievement peaks in third grade at nearly 31%, then gradually decreases to about 23% by sixth grade.
What does this mean for gifted students?
The cliché image that mainly gifted students underachieve isn’t quite accurate. This study clearly shows that typically developing classmates also perform well below their abilities to a significant degree. Underachievement is therefore not an exclusive “gifted problem,” but a phenomenon that occurs in every group.
At the same time, the study highlights that even highly talented children can remain invisibly below their level. That makes it especially tricky: a student from the top 10% who keeps up easily in class and achieves good results may still be performing far below their cognitive potential. On report cards, it may look “just fine,” but in reality, the student is only using part of their abilities.
For education professionals, this means you need to stay alert with all students, not just those with weak results. Underachievement can hide behind good grades but becomes visible when you look at motivation, engagement, learning attitude, and the ability to handle challenge. For you as a teacher, this means that underachievement in math isn’t always visible through low grades. So also pay attention to other signals:
Boredom or loss of motivation: a student who says “this is too easy” but doesn’t take it any further.
Being satisfied too quickly: children who only do the bare minimum to get a good grade.
Little perseverance: as soon as it gets difficult, they give up.
By looking not only at performance, but also at potential and learning attitude, you can better assess whether a student is truly learning.
Practical tips
Provide math tasks that offer challenge: assignments that don’t just repeat but spark curiosity and reasoning.
Encourage reflection: have students think about their approach (“How did you know that?”).
Make differences a topic of discussion: emphasize that learning isn’t only about the right answer, but also about the path toward it.
Keep an eye on strong students as well: a high grade doesn’t automatically mean they are fully using their talents.
Conclusion
Underachievement isn’t always reflected in grades. It occurs in both typically developing and gifted students. Thanks to innovative methods borrowed from the economic field, we now have a clearer picture of this. For teachers, the challenge is to look beyond grades and help every student truly reach their potential.
How can a child with good grades still be underachieving?
Because grades only show what a student does, not what they are actually capable of. Some students do just enough to obtain good results, while using only a fraction of their potential. This becomes visible when they avoid challenge, finish quickly, show little perseverance, or feel bored.
Is underachievement mainly a problem among gifted students?
No. Research shows that underachievement occurs just as often in students with average ability. Gifted children may be slightly more sensitive to a mismatch between pace and challenge, but underachievement is a widespread phenomenon that occurs in every classroom and at every ability level.
What can a teacher do to identify and prevent underachievement?
By looking beyond grades: observe motivation, engagement, willingness to exert effort, and how a student handles more difficult tasks. Provide challenging assignments, encourage reflection (“How did you approach this?”), and ensure that high-ability students are also pushed so they can fully develop their potential.
References
Mazrekaj, D., Witte, K. D., & Triebs, T. P. (2022). Mind the Gap: Measuring Academic Underachievement Using Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Exceptional Children, 88(4), 442-459. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211073524
Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hébert, T. P. (2004). Understanding resilience in diverse, talented Students in an urban high school. Roeper Review, 27(2), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554299
Schick, H., & Phillipson, S. N. (2009). Learning motivation and performance excellence in adolescents with high intellectual potential: What really matters? High Ability Studies, 20(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130902879366
White, S. L. J., Graham, L. J., & Blaas, S. (2018). Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.001
Copyright © 2025 Dr. Sabine Sypré – All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. Sharing online is permitted provided the author is credited and a link to this article is included.
