The Brightest Student in Your Class May Not Yet Speak the Language of Instruction

"They all belong in the lowest-level class."

It's a comment my husband, who teaches newly arrived multilingual students, hears on a regular basis. Not because his students struggle to learn, but because many of them are still developing proficiency in the language of instruction. For language learning, grouping students by language level makes perfect sense. For other subjects, however, it creates a very different challenge.

When he teaches mathematics, he sees students who can barely hold a conversation in the language of instruction yet grasp complex mathematical patterns almost instantly. Sitting beside them are students who genuinely need much more support in math. Nevertheless, they all receive the same lesson because the class is organized according to language proficiency rather than cognitive ability or prior mathematical knowledge.

This places him in a difficult position every day. How do you provide high-quality instruction to a class where the differences in mathematical knowledge and reasoning ability are often far greater than the differences in language development? Ideally, he would also group students for mathematics—but based on their mathematical understanding and reasoning skills, not on how well they speak the language of instruction.

My husband's experience is far from unique. Recent research from the Netherlands confirms that schools frequently overlook cognitively gifted multilingual learners. In a study involving more than 5,300 students, researchers found that both teachers and parents regularly misjudged giftedness (Hovinga & Cramer, 2026). Moreover, students who were learning Dutch as a second language were significantly less likely to be identified as cognitively gifted, even when their objectively measured cognitive abilities were comparable to those of their Dutch-speaking peers.

This does not mean that teachers do not know their students well. Rather, the findings highlight how difficult it can be to accurately recognize cognitive potential when language development and cognitive ability are so easily conflated.

Language Proficiency and Cognitive Ability Are Not the Same

A student who is still developing proficiency in the language of instruction may nevertheless be fully capable of recognizing complex patterns, making sophisticated connections, and grasping new concepts with remarkable speed. The challenge is that these abilities are often far less visible in classrooms where nearly every lesson, discussion, and assessment depends heavily on language.

As a result, a misleading impression can easily emerge. A student who speaks very little, takes longer to respond, or has a limited vocabulary may unintentionally be perceived as having lower ability, even though their underlying cognitive processing is far more advanced than their language skills suggest.

The research confirms exactly this pattern. Even after accounting for objectively measured cognitive ability, students who were learning Dutch as a second language were significantly less likely to be identified as gifted by their teachers.

Why Are Gifted Multilingual Learners So Often Overlooked?

Hovinga and Cramer (2026) found that the disparities extended beyond multilingual learners. Even when cognitive ability was the same, girls were less likely than boys to be identified as gifted. Younger students within the same grade level were also less likely to be nominated, and socioeconomic background likewise influenced the likelihood of being recognized as cognitively gifted.

These findings highlight that equitable identification requires more than good intentions. We all interpret what we observe through our own frame of reference, often without realizing it. That is why it is so important to make the identification process as objective as possible and to draw on multiple sources of information when evaluating a child's cognitive potential.

A second recent study illustrates how these inequities can persist over time. Across several European countries, high-achieving students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were found to be at greater risk of declining school motivation than equally capable peers from more advantaged families (Van Tricht et al., 2025). The authors argue that expectations, opportunities, and the educational environment all play an important role in whether a child's talents are recognized and developed.

When cognitively gifted multilingual learners are not identified, they often miss exactly what they need most: appropriate academic challenge, targeted support, and recognition of their abilities. Over time, this can lead to boredom, declining motivation, or academic underachievement—not because they lack potential, but because that potential was never fully recognized or given the opportunity to flourish.

This presents an important challenge for schools. As classrooms become increasingly diverse, it is more important than ever to look beyond language proficiency alone. After all, cognitive talent does not always speak through the language of the classroom. Sometimes, it reveals itself first in the way a student thinks.

How Can Schools Better Identify Gifted Multilingual Learners?

Perhaps the most important lesson from this research is that identifying giftedness should never rely solely on intuition or on what happens to be visible during everyday classroom activities. A teacher's professional judgment remains essential, but when working with multilingual learners, it is also more vulnerable to unintentional bias. Many of the characteristics we instinctively associate with giftedness are, after all, closely tied to language: an advanced vocabulary, quick and elaborate verbal responses, asking sophisticated questions, constructing well-reasoned arguments, or reading with exceptional fluency. Students who are still learning the language of instruction may not yet be able to demonstrate these characteristics, even though they are thinking at a remarkably advanced level.

That is why it is so important to deliberately look for cognitive learning characteristics that are less dependent on language. Does a student grasp a new concept after a single brief demonstration? Do they need very little repetition once they understand what is expected? Do they recognize patterns before their classmates? Do they spontaneously apply a newly learned concept in a different context? Do they notice inconsistencies or errors that others overlook? Can they generate multiple solutions to the same problem? Observations like these often reveal far more about the quality and speed of a student's thinking than about their proficiency in the language of instruction.

Look Beyond Language Proficiency

One place this often becomes visible is in mathematics. A student may struggle to understand the language in a mathematical word problem, yet immediately recognize the mathematical relationships once the problem is presented visually. Another student may not yet know the vocabulary for fractions in the language of instruction but instantly grasp how parts relate to a whole. Yet another may not only solve problems quickly but also discover a more efficient strategy and communicate it using numbers, diagrams, or gestures. It would be a mistake to dismiss these performances as lucky guesses simply because the student cannot yet explain their reasoning fluently in the language of instruction.

Cognitive strengths can also become apparent in science, technology, engineering, and computer programming. A student who spontaneously predicts the outcome of an experiment, distinguishes between relevant variables, or proposes an unexpected explanation demonstrates far more than prior knowledge. The same is true of a student who quickly understands how a simple computer program is structured with minimal instruction, systematically investigates a technical problem, or improves a design after an initial attempt fails. In these situations, the most informative aspect is often not the final product itself, but the way the student thinks, adapts, and processes new information.

Make Thinking Visible

Schools can intentionally design learning activities that allow students to demonstrate their thinking without relying exclusively on language. Examples include visual analogies, pattern sequences, logic puzzles, construction challenges, science experiments, sorting and classification tasks, maps, diagrams, graphs, tangrams, coding activities, or hands-on problems that students can solve using physical materials. Even a brief demonstration followed by independent application can reveal a great deal. Does the student quickly grasp what was modeled? Can they generalize the underlying principle? Do they spontaneously create variations or extend the idea? These are all valuable indicators of advanced cognitive functioning.

This does not mean that schools should replace language-rich instruction with language-light activities. Language development remains essential. Rather, it means that educators should carefully consider what a particular task is actually measuring. Is it assessing reading comprehension, subject knowledge, reasoning ability, or some combination of these? If a student struggles with a task, is the difficulty caused by limited conceptual understanding, insufficient vocabulary, unfamiliar academic language, or perhaps interrupted schooling? Without making these distinctions, there is a real risk that language barriers will be mistaken for limitations in cognitive ability.

Instruction itself can also be adapted to make students' thinking more visible. Teachers might introduce key vocabulary in advance, provide a worked example, use visuals or graphic organizers, and then observe what the student does with the new information. Sometimes, after only minimal language support, a student is suddenly able to engage successfully with much more complex material than anyone initially expected. When that happens, it tells us something important: the barrier was language—not thinking.

Gather Evidence from Multiple Sources

It is also important to evaluate students based not only on how they compare with their classmates, but also on how quickly they learn and develop over time. Newly arrived multilingual learners often begin with limited proficiency in the language of instruction or gaps in prior educational experiences, yet some make remarkable progress in a very short period. A student who advances rapidly within a matter of weeks, requires very little instruction, and readily transfers newly acquired knowledge to unfamiliar situations may be demonstrating significant cognitive potential—even if their current level of achievement has not yet caught up. Focusing only on present-day performance can cause educators to overlook the extraordinary speed with which that performance has developed.

For that reason, a single observation is rarely sufficient. A much more complete picture emerges when information is gathered across different subjects, settings, and perspectives. How does the student perform during language arts, mathematics, science and technology, creative activities, and independent work? Do multiple teachers observe the same rapid understanding of new concepts? What does the student demonstrate during one-on-one instruction? What interests, strengths, or abilities do parents observe at home, perhaps in the child's home language? Has the student attended school previously, and are report cards, projects, or other records available? No single source provides the full picture, but together they can reveal patterns that would remain invisible in any one classroom or lesson.

For schools, this also means that grouping students by language proficiency should not automatically determine placement in every subject. A student may need substantial language support while simultaneously performing far above their language group's level in mathematics, science, or technology. Flexible grouping by subject or learning objective may therefore be far more appropriate. For language instruction, grouping by language proficiency makes sense. For mathematics or science, however, prior knowledge, rate of learning, and problem-solving ability may be much more meaningful criteria. Although this requires greater organizational flexibility, it helps prevent students from being consistently placed in classes that are below their cognitive level simply because they are still developing proficiency in the language of instruction.

Identification Is Only the Beginning

Identifying giftedness should never be the end of the process. When a student consistently demonstrates advanced cognitive learning characteristics, the next step should be a thoughtful and purposeful response. This may involve further observation, providing more challenging learning opportunities, temporarily placing the student in a more advanced instructional group, gathering information about the student's abilities in their home language, or using cognitive screening tools that minimize the impact of language proficiency.

A student's response to increased challenge provides valuable information in its own right. Do they thrive when presented with more complex work? Do they learn new material rapidly? Does their engagement increase? The answers to these questions not only make cognitive potential more visible—they also provide the student with the opportunity to develop that potential further.

In Closing

Perhaps schools should ask themselves not only, "How quickly is this student learning the language of instruction?" but also, "How quickly is this student learning?" These are two fundamentally different questions. Only when we deliberately distinguish between language development and cognitive potential can we prevent exceptional talent from remaining hidden behind limited proficiency in the language of instruction.

The challenge for schools, therefore, is not only to help newly arrived multilingual learners acquire the language of instruction. It is also to ensure that these students continue to develop intellectually while they are learning that language. When language becomes the only lens through which we view a student, we risk overlooking remarkable cognitive ability. And gifted potential often has only one opportunity to be recognized at the right time.

By consciously distinguishing language proficiency from cognitive ability, using flexible grouping whenever appropriate, and providing students with multiple ways to demonstrate their thinking beyond language alone, schools can ensure that gifted multilingual learners receive the level of challenge they truly need to thrive.

References

• Hovinga, F., & Cramer, Y. (2026). Language, migration and the identification of giftedness: Evidence of systemic misalignment in the Netherlands. Gifted and Talented International. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2026.2672506
• Van Tricht, L., Gubbels, J., Hoogeveen, L., & Bakx, A. (2025). Motivation of high-ability secondary school students from low SES families in the Netherlands compared to Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark and Germany. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2578426 

Copyright © 2026 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.