Gifted Education and Primary School: A Qualitative Analysis of Italian Teachers’ Perceptions

Abstract

Giftedness remains a largely unrecognised phenomenon within the Italian school system, where teacher training and educational strategies are still predominantly focused on the needs of students with learning difficulties where special education is concerned. Through a qualitative analysis of three focus groups conducted with 15 teachers from various Italian regions, this study explores the perceptions, challenges, and training needs of primary school teachers in relation to gifted education. Participants, selected from a previous nationwide survey on teachers’ perceptions of giftedness, represented diverse geographical and professional contexts and discussed their experiences in moderated sessions of about 90 min each. Data were transcribed and examined through thematic analysis, following an inductive coding process conducted collaboratively by the research team to ensure reliability and depth of interpretation. The analysis revealed five main themes: an uncertain and fragmented definition of giftedness, often confused with high academic achievement or learning disorders; difficulties in early identification due to a lack of training and suitable diagnostic tools; challenges in classroom management; inadequate teaching strategies, often ineffective in addressing the needs of gifted students; and the need for specific training and practical support tools. Teachers also emphasised relational difficulties, issues in collaborating with families, and the frequent marginalisation of giftedness in school discourse. The focus groups, beyond being research instruments, proved to be meaningful formative experiences, allowing teachers to reflect on practice and co-construct possible solutions. Among the most shared proposals were the introduction of mandatory training, both at the university and in-service level, and the creation of a teacher-friendly vademecum to support early identification and suggest practical classroom strategies. The findings suggest that the absence of an institutional culture around giftedness significantly limits the recognition and development of these students within the Italian educational system, highlighting the urgent need to integrate this topic into teacher training programmes and to provide operational tools to support teachers in their practice.

1. Introduction

In recent years, interest in the education of students with high cognitive potential has grown internationally, leading to the creation of specific educational programmes aimed at supporting their development (Medina Rivilla, 2020a; Pfeiffer, 2015; Renzulli, 2012). However, in many countries, including Italy, the topic of giftedness remains marginal within educational discourse and is often confused with high academic achievement or even overlooked in everyday teaching practices (Baccassino et al., 2023; Persson, 2009). Giftedness is not limited to higher cognitive abilities but is expressed through a broad range of characteristics, including heightened curiosity, creativity, divergent thinking, and emotional sensitivity (Winner, 1996). As a result, gifted students may present with specific educational needs which, if not adequately recognised and supported, may lead to academic difficulties, disengagement, or even early school dropout (Neihart et al., 2002).

Despite international research highlighting the significance of tailored teaching strategies, the Italian school system remains largely focused on students with learning difficulties, specific disorders, and special educational needs, without explicitly including gifted learners within these categories (Milan, 2022). While this approach is important to ensure equal educational opportunities for students facing difficulties, it risks implicitly excluding gifted pupils, who are not currently covered by any protective legal framework (Ziegler & Phillipson, 2012).

Teacher training on giftedness is often insufficient, not only in Italy but also in many international contexts (Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2017; Çelik Şahin, 2021; Smeets et al., 2023). The literature suggests that, in the absence of appropriate training, teachers tend to confuse giftedness with high academic achievement or with other atypical conditions, thus limiting the possibility of implementing targeted educational interventions. Several studies, such as the “Giftedness into Flourishing Talents” project conducted in Hong Kong (Cheung et al., 2022), have shown that specific and structured teacher training can significantly improve theoretical knowledge, educational attitudes, and teaching practices in relation to gifted students.

Although research on gifted education has grown internationally, studies focusing on the Italian context remain scarce. Recent work by Torello and Pérez-Navío (2025) has mapped the current state of the art in Italy and Spain, highlighting the limited availability of specialised training opportunities—such as master’s programmes, professional development courses, and practical resources—as well as the relatively small body of academic publications and policy documents addressing the topic. This lack of a robust research base reinforces the need for empirical investigations that explore teachers’ perceptions and training needs, in order to inform both educational practice and policy.

This study aims to explore the level of awareness and preparation of primary school teachers in Italy with regard to giftedness, through the analysis of three focus groups conducted with female and male teachers. The objective is to understand their perceptions, challenges, and training needs, as well as to highlight the main institutional and cultural barriers that hinder the recognition and management of gifted students within the Italian school context (Baldacci, 2014).

In the field of teacher training, reflection on practice and the sharing of experiences are crucial for the development of professional competences. In this regard, focus groups represent particularly effective tools for qualitative inquiry, as they promote active participation, dialogical exchange, and the co-construction of shared meanings.

As Medina Rivilla (2020a, p. 142) states, “training in and through competences means enabling teachers to construct innovative models […], aware of the new values and attitudes that education, at the turn of the 21st century, is proposing.” This competence-based training approach makes it possible to move beyond transmissive models and encourages teachers to take an active role in transforming educational settings.

This study explored several research questions, which can be grouped into the following three main areas:

• What are Italian teachers’ perceptions of giftedness?
• What challenges do they face in identifying and supporting gifted students?
• What strategies and tools do they consider necessary to improve support for these pupils?

The analysis of the responses of the focus groups allowed us to outline the current landscape and to suggest potential directions for more appropriate teacher training, with the aim of promoting an education that is truly inclusive—one that values the potential of all students, including those with high cognitive abilities.

2. Materials and Methods

To explore the perceptions, experiences, and training needs of primary school teachers in relation to giftedness, this study adopted a qualitative approach based on the focus group methodology. This allowed participants to express their views and experiences within a structured discussion setting (Krueger & Casey, 2015). The qualitative approach aligns with the view in Huber (2011), which invites reflection on the epistemology of qualitative research as a process of co-constructing meaning between the researcher and participants. Such a perspective is particularly suited to educational research, where teachers’ perceptions, lived experiences, and professional practices play a central role. The underlying assumption is that professional competence does not derive solely from theoretical knowledge, but also from the ability to critically reflect on one’s own practices and to reshape personal beliefs within a collaborative environment. In line with Medina Rivilla’s perspective, focus group methodology enables teachers to become aware of the fact that teaching can be an innovative educational practice, allowing them to select and adapt appropriate models, methods, and techniques to improve their professional practice Medina Rivilla, 2020a, 2020c). Peer dialogue creates a fertile ground for the development of the key competences identified in the literature—such as communication, motivation, tutorial skills, and critical reflection—which are fundamental dimensions in the training of inclusive teachers. The study sample consisted of 15 primary school teachers from various regions of Italy, working in both urban and rural schools. They were organised into three focus groups of five participants each, a number considered adequate given the homogeneity of the group in terms of age (35–55 years), professional stability (all held a Master’s degree and a permanent teaching contract), and teaching experience, combined with their heterogeneity in geographical origin. Participants did not know each other prior to this study, and each of them represented their own school context. All participants were selected from among the 225 teachers who had responded to a previous questionnaire aimed at assessing the level of knowledge and perception of giftedness among Italian teachers (Torello et al., 2024). Selection was based on their expressed interest in the research and their willingness to take part in the focus groups, applying a purposive sampling strategy. This diversity in professional settings, together with the common background in terms of experience and qualifications, was deemed to provide a balanced basis for in-depth group discussions. The approach adopted in defining the composition and size of the focus groups is consistent with the principles of qualitative research, which prioritise the richness and variety of perspectives over statistical representativeness. All participants gave informed consent for the recording and use of the data for research purposes. Complete anonymization of personal information and school affiliations was ensured, in accordance with ethical standards for educational research. The focus groups were conducted in person, in familiar school settings, to foster a relaxed atmosphere and encourage the sharing of experiences. Each session lasted approximately 90 min and was facilitated by an experienced moderator, who guided the discussion using a semi-structured questioning framework.

The topics addressed in the focus groups included the following:

• Definitions of giftedness and personal perceptions of the term;
• Previous experiences with gifted students (training, school contexts, discussions with colleagues, etc.);
• Difficulties encountered in identifying and managing gifted students;
• Strategies adopted by teachers to support gifted pupils;
• Training needs and useful tools for improving instructional practice;
• Perspectives on how the Italian school system approaches the issue of giftedness.

All discussions were audio-recorded and fully transcribed, ensuring participant anonymity.

The focus group transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify recurring patterns and key concepts emerging from the textual data. The process adopted was primarily inductive, while also incorporating sensitising concepts from the literature on giftedness (e.g., definitions, management of boredom, and needs) in a non-restrictive way. The unit of analysis was the meaning unit (typically a sentence or short speaking turn), to preserve the conversational context.

The analysis process followed these stages:

• Familiarisation with the data: thorough reading of the transcripts to identify main ideas. All three authors read the transcripts in full several times, making reflective notes on recurring patterns, contextual aspects, and potential interpretative biases.
• Initial coding (first-cycle, line-by-line): segmenting the text into meaningful units and assigning codes to the most relevant key concepts. The text was segmented into meaningful units and coded line-by-line, primarily at the semantic level, with occasional latent coding when implicit meanings were relevant to the research aims. An initial set of approximately 128 codes was generated across the three focus groups (Group 1 ≈ 45; Group 2 ≈ 41; Group 3 ≈ 42), recorded in a shared codebook with operational definitions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and examples.
• Theme identification (second-cycle coding): grouping the codes into broader and recurring categories. Using pattern coding and constant comparison, code families were grouped into candidate themes and sub-themes, with iterative returns to the data where necessary. This stage progressively incorporated a latent level of analysis, while remaining grounded in representative quotations.
• Reviewing and refining themes: checking consistency between codes and themes, and merging overlapping themes. The three authors, affiliated with two different universities and all with expertise in qualitative research and gifted education, each independently coded the full set of data. Discrepancies were discussed until full consensus was reached, leading to the reduction of the code set to approximately 62 broader code families. Inter-rater reliability was calculated on the double-coded subset using Cohen’s $\kappa$ (target range $\kappa \approx 0.70$–$0.80$), after which the remaining data were coded individually following the agreed codebook.
• Defining and naming themes: creating detailed descriptions for each theme and assigning clear, concise labels to the main themes.
• Interpretation and synthesis of results: organising the themes into a coherent narrative based on the research questions, including a comparison of the themes that emerged across the different focus groups to identify points of convergence and divergence. An audit trail (codebook versions, memos, and decision log) and a positionality statement for the authors were maintained, recognising that themes do not “emerge” fully formed from data but are developed through systematic and reflexive researcher interpretation.

The entire coding process was conducted collaboratively by the three authors of this study, who are affiliated with two different universities and share expertise in both qualitative research and gifted education. This inter-institutional composition enriched the analysis by bringing together diverse academic perspectives and professional experiences, enhancing the interpretative depth of the findings.

A preliminary coding framework was jointly developed by the authors based on a subset of the data, through discussion and comparison of initial impressions. This framework was then independently applied by each author to the transcripts in their entirety. During this stage, the material was double-coded by all three authors to allow for verification of consistency and to identify discrepancies. Differences in coding were examined in collective meetings until full consensus was achieved, and the coding framework was refined accordingly to improve clarity, operational definitions, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Following this agreement phase, the remaining data were coded individually by each author, strictly adhering to the agreed codebook. While no formal inter-rater reliability coefficient was calculated for the entire dataset, Cohen’s $\kappa$ was computed for the double-coded subset (target range $\kappa \approx 0.70$–$0.80$), providing an additional measure of coding consistency. This rigorous, iterative process ensured that the identification and interpretation of themes were both systematic and reliable, and that they reflected the shared analytical judgment of all authors.

Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s (2006) view, the themes were not treated as naturally emerging entities but as the outcome of the researchers’ active interpretative work, shaped by their theoretical perspectives and the specific aims of this study.

3. Results

The interpretation of the data emerging from the focus groups was conducted with awareness of the inherent limitations of subjectivity in qualitative research. This aligned with Huber’s (2014) observation that managing interpretative conflicts was an integral part of the research process and represented an opportunity to construct shared meanings, especially in the field of education, where contexts were by nature complex and dynamic. The qualitative analysis of the data collected through the focus groups made it possible to identify a number of key themes related to teachers’ perceptions of giftedness, the challenges they faced in managing gifted students, and possible strategies to improve support for this school population. The results were presented according to thematic categories, highlighting similarities and differences across the groups. All quotations from participants were reported anonymously and integrated into the narrative text.

The most significant findings were as follows:

Perceptions of giftedness and difficulties in defining it. One of the first themes to emerge from the focus groups was the difficulty teachers experienced in providing a clear and consistent definition of giftedness. While some participants instinctively associated the concept with above-average cognitive ability, many expressed uncertainty, highlighting giftedness as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. It was often viewed as a positive condition that did not necessarily require specific educational intervention.

There was a particularly relevant misunderstanding in the Italian context related to the term plusdotazione, which literally meant “additional endowment.” The prefix plus implicitly suggested that the individual already possessed “something extra” and therefore might not require particular attention. This linguistic nuance appeared to contribute to a tendency among some teachers to assume that such students could manage on their own. As one participant observed, “Plusdotazione indicated a group of people who had characteristics higher than others—plus,” while another stated, “It’s simply someone who has something extra, in any field.” This perception could lead to underestimating the need for targeted educational strategies, as the “extra” was assumed to compensate for any potential challenges. Some teachers described giftedness as a form of specific talent, referring to advanced abilities in areas such as mathematics, music, or creativity. Others adopted a broader perspective, suggesting that giftedness could be seen as a spectrum of abilities extending beyond cognitive skills and manifesting in various ways. In some cases, giftedness was associated with striking and spontaneous intellectual leaps: “A pupil might constantly demonstrate having flashes of intuition, solving mathematical problems without prior explanation, as if their mental structure were a few years ahead of their age.”

An interesting aspect that emerged was the tendency among some teachers to associate giftedness with other conditions, such as autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), revealing limited awareness of its distinctive features. As one participant noted, “Gifted children were often confused with those who had attention problems, because they might get bored and easily distracted.” Another remarked, “Sometimes they reminded me of children with autism, because they focused deeply on certain things, but I’m not sure if that was the same as being gifted.” None of the participants, however, demonstrated familiarity with the technical term twice-exceptional students or with the specific implications of dual diagnoses. This lack of conceptual clarity presented a significant barrier to the early identification of gifted students and to the planning of appropriate educational responses. In summary, the findings confirmed that awareness of giftedness among teachers was extremely limited. Most of the participants reported having no clear definition of the concept and had never received specific training on the subject. This heterogeneity in definitions reflected the absence of a clear and shared theoretical framework within the Italian school system.

Limited knowledge and lack of training on giftedness. A second recurring theme concerned the limited dissemination of the concept of giftedness within the Italian school system. Most participants reported having encountered the topic only in non-academic contexts, such as films, television programmes, or through more informed colleagues. As one participant noted, “I first heard about it from you, during this study.” Another reflected: “I read the term in the questionnaire and went to look it up online because I didn’t know it.”

None of the teachers involved stated that they had received any specific training on giftedness during their university studies or through professional development courses in their workplaces. This knowledge gap is also reflected in the language teachers used to describe gifted students. In the absence of a clear and shared terminology, teachers tended to use vague expressions such as “brighter children” or “students who did better at school,” indicating a limited understanding of the phenomenon.

The lack of knowledge was often connected to the perception that giftedness was not a priority within the school system. One participant explained: “We already had too many difficulties with students who struggled; if a child did well, then fine, my problem was with those who couldn’t manage.” Similarly, another added: “No one talked about it, not even in staff meetings. It was as if the topic didn’t exist.”

Moreover, all teachers highlighted that mandatory professional development for school staff focused almost exclusively on topics related to disability, specific learning disorders (SLDs), and the inclusion of students with learning difficulties, while giftedness was rarely considered a priority. As one participant observed: “Every time we asked for training, the funds went to the same topics: disabilities, SLDs, ADHD. Gifted education had never been on the table.” This training gap contributed to keeping the topic on the margins of educational discourse and limited teachers’ ability to identify and adequately support gifted students.

The absence of the concepts of giftedness in school discourse. All three focus groups highlighted that giftedness was virtually absent from discussions among teachers, staff meetings, and professional development programmes. According to participants, the Italian school system adopted an educational model based on the principle of homogeneity, which tended to standardise learning levels rather than value individual differences. As one participant observed, “There’s too much egalitarianism now: every child must be equally good, and those who are more capable have to slow down to keep pace with everyone else.”

Some teachers noted that the system was grounded in a philosophy of inclusion which, although beneficial for supporting students with difficulties, does not provide specific strategies for pupils with above-average potential. One participant expressed this issue in particularly emblematic terms: “Much was invested to ensure the academic success of those who struggled, but no one asked what to do with those who learned more quickly.” Another added: “In my school, no one had ever proposed training on this topic: our focus was always on disabilities and learning difficulties.”

Moreover, several participants reported that when gifted students were mentioned, it was almost exclusively in relation to behavioural management issues, such as difficulty concentrating in class or restlessness due to boredom. As one teacher put it, “The few times we talked about these children, it was only because their behaviour was disruptive, never to enhance their abilities.” This reflected a perception of giftedness more as a “problem” to be managed than as an educational opportunity.

Difficulties in managing gifted students. Focus group participants shared a variety of experiences relating to the management of students they considered to be gifted or potentially gifted. The main difficulties identified included boredom and lack of motivation, social and relational challenges, and the absence of differentiated teaching strategies.

Regarding boredom and demotivation, it appeared that many gifted students tend to become quickly disengaged when lessons are not sufficiently stimulating, leading to disinterest or oppositional behaviour. As one participant noted, “He would finish his work before everyone else and then come to me asking, ‘What do I do now?’, over and over again.” Another teacher recalled a student who, frustrated by repeated explanations, asked to be kept at home if the same topic was going to be reviewed yet again.

The strategies adopted by teachers to address these situations often appeared improvised, inadequate, and poorly structured, often limited to involving the gifted student in peer tutoring activities with struggling classmates, or assigning additional, more complex worksheets. One participant admitted: “We knew we should personalise learning, but in practice we couldn’t do everything, and the most capable were often the first to be neglected.” Concerning the lack of differentiated teaching methods, many teachers admitted not knowing how to adapt their instructional approach to meet the needs of gifted learners.

In terms of relational difficulties, some teachers observed that gifted students might struggle with peers or teacher interactions, often because their divergent thinking style led them to feel “different” from others. Other teachers noted that gifted students might face challenges in social interaction with peers, particularly when the intellectual gap was pronounced: “When the class saw that he always finished first and got everything right, some children started saying ‘Ugh, it’s always him!’.” Others pointed out that such students sometimes preferred interacting with adults, a need that could not be met consistently in a regular classroom.

A particularly significant issue raised was the management of relationships with the parents of gifted students. Some teachers shared experiences where parents, aware of their children’s advanced abilities, expected the school to provide personalised enrichment programmes, only to be met with a lack of resources and adequate strategies. Conversely, other families failed to recognise their children’s talent as something distinctive, downplaying their characteristics and offering little support for enrichment opportunities. As one participant observed, “Sometimes parents were even reluctant to accept the idea that their child was different, even when that difference was a resource.”

Training needs and support tools. In light of these challenges, participants expressed a strong need for specific training on giftedness (Pérez Navío et al., 2024). They emphasised that such training should begin at university level, to provide future teachers with a solid theoretical foundation, and that ongoing professional development courses would be useful, particularly those offering practical tools for identifying and managing gifted students. As one teacher observed, “As happened with disabilities, identification—although not diagnosis—often began with the teacher, and if you did not know what to observe, you could not guide the family towards further assessment or adapt your teaching effectively.”

All but one teacher expressed the need for an operational guide, a vademecum, containing clear indicators to help recognise potentially gifted pupils and suggest effective teaching strategies. Some likened it to the checklists already used for learning disorders, describing it as “a tool that, even if not definitive, made you think ‘perhaps I should look deeper into this’.” Many stressed that it should be “practical, simple, and quick to use in everyday teaching, without becoming yet another endless observation grid that got lost in the chaos of daily school life.” Another participant suggested that it might include “a small set of classroom activities or games—possibly digital—that helped to spot certain traits,” while avoiding open-ended questions that required lengthy analysis.

Preferences varied on the format: some favoured yes/no items for straightforward traits, while others argued for rating scales to capture nuances, noting that “Yes or no flattened everyone to the same level—sometimes you needed a scale to understand the differences.” There was unanimous agreement that the tool should be free of charge, since “No public school would have invested in something like this, even if it had been useful,” and that cost should never have been a barrier to its adoption.

Several participants emphasised that a vademecum alone would not have been enough without adequate training on how to use it. As one teacher explained, “We needed to know not only what to look for, but also what to do next,” suggesting that training should have provided “clear, operational steps” to follow, similar to a recipe: first identifying certain behaviours, then selecting appropriate enrichment materials, and finally integrating differentiated activities into the lesson plan. Some proposed blended training models, with the theoretical component delivered online—covering definitions, models, and key characteristics—and the practical component conducted in person, using simulations of multi-level classroom scenarios. In these workshops, teachers could have practised how to manage a group where a gifted student coexisted with classmates with learning disorders, ADHD, disabilities, or language barriers, making the training more relevant, realistic, and immediately applicable.

4. Teachers’ Proposals

The analysis of the focus groups provided a general picture of how primary school teachers in Italy perceive giftedness. The findings revealed a number of structural and cultural issues that limit the recognition and support of gifted students within the school system. The proposals outlined below emerged across all focus groups, clearly indicating that teachers felt the need for concrete tools and structured interventions to improve the identification and management of giftedness. These proposals fall into three main areas: training, early identification tools, and targeted teaching strategies.

4.1. Specific Training on Giftedness: An Overarching Need

One of the most strongly emphasised points was the total lack of training on gifted education within both university courses and professional development programmes for teachers. Many participants reported that their preparation focused almost exclusively on Special Educational Needs (SENs) and Specific Learning Disorders (SLDs), while giftedness remained a largely neglected area. To address this gap, teachers proposed the introduction of mandatory modules on giftedness within degree programmes in Primary Education, to ensure future teachers acquire a basic understanding from the outset of their careers; the implementation of professional development courses for in-service teachers, delivered at national or regional level, with recognised certification and practical content on how to identify and support gifted students; the organisation of workshops and seminars with experts in gifted education, focusing on case studies, simulations, and classroom-applicable strategies; the promotion of good practice sharing among teachers, through school networks or online platforms, to exchange field-tested solutions and experiences. Some teachers also suggested that training on giftedness should be made a mandatory component of schools’ annual training plans, as it is already the case for other inclusion-related topics.

4.2. Development of Practical Tools for Early Identification

Another frequently mentioned issue was the difficulty in promptly identifying gifted students. The current lack of official protocols and clear indicators make early identification extremely challenging. Teachers expressed a strong need for practical tools to support this process—tools that would not, however, add to their existing workload. The most widely supported proposals included the following:

• Increased collaboration with specialists, through the establishment of in-school consultation services in which psychologists or educational specialists can assist teachers with the identification process. However, teachers agreed that current school budgets rarely allow for this type of expenditure.
• Screening projects within schools, using validated psychometric tools administered to pupils in the early years of primary school. Again, limited financial resources were seen as a major barrier to implementation.
• A teacher-friendly vademecum, including a list of observable classroom indicators (cognitive, emotional, and behavioural), practical suggestions for instructional intervention, strategies for effectively engaging gifted students, guidance on when and how to refer a child for diagnostic assessment, and examples of good practice for daily classroom management. This vademecum should consist of quick observation checklists, offering a lightweight and easy-to-use tool for monitoring student behaviour and identifying possible signs of giftedness. The idea of an operational guide was especially well received by teachers, who saw it as a concrete aid in their daily practice, without the need for complex testing or hard-to-access external resources.

4.3. Teaching Strategies to Meet the Needs of Gifted Students

Teachers also proposed various changes to teaching organisation and scheduling, in line with school autonomy, to better meet the needs of gifted students. The most discussed solutions included open classrooms or level-based learning pathways, allowing gifted pupils to attend more advanced lessons in specific subjects without being constrained by the standard curriculum progression; more space for personalised learning, through the assignment of in-depth projects aligned with the student’s interests; the use of innovative teaching methodologies (problem-based learning, enabling students to work on complex, real-world problems, cooperative learning, with group tasks that value each student’s individual contribution, and a flipped classroom, to foster independent learning and critical thinking); expanded extracurricular offerings, especially in the arts, music, technology, and science, areas often mentioned by gifted students as high-interest domains; specific training for teachers on how to manage the motivation of gifted students, to prevent boredom and disinterest from leading to underachievement (Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003). Some teachers also proposed the introduction of a school-based gifted education coordinator, responsible for overseeing identification and support activities within the school. While this role already exists in some upper secondary schools, it is not currently present in the primary schools involved in this study.

In addition to these practical proposals, a broader reflection emerged from the focus groups concerning the need for systemic change. The current Italian school system is not structured to effectively respond to the needs of gifted students. The absence of specific legislation, the scarcity of training opportunities, and the lack of a clear framework for early identification have all contributed to keeping giftedness on the periphery of educational debate. Teachers stressed that, in order to bring about real change, giftedness must be officially recognised as a special educational need, and explicitly included in ministerial guidelines. They called for incentives to support research and the experimentation of innovative teaching models to better meet the needs of gifted students, as well as for improved communication between schools, families, and specialists to foster a collaborative approach to managing giftedness.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that giftedness remains a largely unrecognised reality in Italian primary schools. Despite growing international attention to gifted education, the Italian school system does not appear to adequately meet the needs of students with high cognitive potential and their teachers. Responses of the focus groups revealed a complex picture, characterised by limited awareness of the gifted phenomenon, difficulties in early identification, and often inadequate teaching strategies that risk hindering the development of these students’ potential. One of the most critical issues that emerge is the lack of a clear and shared definition of giftedness among teachers. Most participants admitted to having only a vague understanding of the concept and, in many cases, to confusing it with high academic achievement or other conditions such as attention disorders or autism spectrum traits. This is particularly significant, as it highlights how the absence of a solid theoretical framework in teacher education generates uncertainty and hinders the identification of gifted students. Without in-depth knowledge of giftedness, teachers struggle to recognise pupils who could benefit from differentiated educational pathways, with the risk that their talents remain unexpressed or misunderstood (Subotnik et al., 2011). Compounding this definitional challenge is a structural issue: the lack of specific training on giftedness. None of the teachers involved in the focus groups reported having received adequate preparation on this subject during their university education or through professional development. Teacher training in Italy is predominantly oriented towards supporting students with learning difficulties, often overlooking the needs of those who, while not displaying clear struggles, require educational stimulation aligned with their potential. This imbalance reflects a school model which, despite promoting inclusion, risks neglecting gifted students who do not fall under traditionally recognised categories requiring specific interventions (Renzulli, 2012). The absence of specific training and of operational tools for early identification is one of the key challenges facing the Italian school system regarding gifted education. As it has also been highlighted internationally (Plucker & Callahan, 2020), gifted education requires greater institutional recognition and a systemic approach that includes both teacher training and differentiated teaching strategies. Although teachers believed that collaboration with specialists and the implementation of screening procedures could facilitate the early identification of gifted students, the lack of financial resources severely limits the feasibility of such measures. Giftedness can no longer be treated as a marginal or “non-issue”. On the contrary, it must be acknowledged as a specific educational condition that requires early identification tools and appropriate teaching strategies. Another important finding relates to the teaching strategies adopted by teachers in managing gifted students. Many teachers reported not having adequate tools to meet these students’ needs and resorting to improvised, often ineffective, solutions. Common strategies included assigning additional tasks or involving gifted students in peer tutoring for classmates with greater difficulties. However, while well-intentioned, such practices do not truly address the educational needs of gifted children and risk generating frustration and demotivation (Neihart et al., 2002). Gifted students do not need more work—they need different work: differentiated, flexible approaches grounded in problem solving, that value their divergent thinking (Winner, 1996) and offer enrichment through activities that stimulate creativity, motivation, and engagement with authentic tasks (Renzulli, 1977, 2012). An inclusive education system must recognise and value diversity, ensuring that all students, regardless of ability level, have the best opportunities for learning and personal growth. The focus groups also reported social integration difficulties faced by some gifted students. Several teachers noted that these pupils might struggle with peer relationships, experiencing feelings of isolation or a lack of belonging within the class. In some cases, the gap between a gifted child’s cognitive level and that of their peers made communication and the sharing of interests difficult, leading to emotional discomfort. This underscores the need for strategies that address not only the cognitive needs of gifted students but also support their social integration, through methods that promote collaboration and respect for individual differences (Cross & Cross, 2017). In light of these issues, teachers put forward a number of proposals to improve the management of giftedness in primary education. Among the most widely shared suggestions was the introduction of mandatory training for teachers—both at the university level and through ongoing professional development—to provide basic knowledge and practical tools for identifying and supporting gifted students. Many participants also emphasised the need for operational tools for early identification, such as a teacher’s vademecum, to help recognise signs of giftedness and suggest appropriate teaching strategies. The introduction of such a guide was seen as one of the most concrete and immediately implementable solutions, enabling teachers to more effectively recognise and respond to the needs of gifted students. A crucial point that emerged from the focus groups is the need for institutional recognition of giftedness. Teachers emphasised that, without a clear regulatory framework that includes gifted students among those entitled to specific educational interventions, it will be difficult to bring about meaningful change within the Italian school system. As noted by Rossi and Zanetti (2022), Italy has not yet developed a clear legal framework for the recognition and support of gifted students, and this legislative gap results in the absence of standardised identification procedures and systematic teacher training. The findings of this study highlight the need for institutional action to formally recognise giftedness as a special educational need. Without such action, gifted education will continue to be handled in a fragmented manner, denying these students equal opportunities to realise their potential. Currently, the lack of ministerial guidelines dedicated to giftedness means that each school must manage the issue autonomously—often without adequate resources or strategies. For this reason, participants called for greater institutional commitment to promoting a culture of advanced education, one that does not view giftedness as elitist but rather as an educational condition requiring targeted attention and tools (Pfeiffer, 2015). In conclusion, both the teachers and the moderator noted that focus groups should be seen not only as tools for qualitative research but also as powerful formative experiences. They provide a space for dialogue and reflection that activates key professional competences, particularly those related to communication, collaboration, and innovative teaching practice. Medina Rivilla (2020b, 2020c) stresses the importance of teachers who are able to integrate the cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions of teaching, enabling a dynamic process of collaborative problem-solving (Bocciolesi, 2016). This study shows that teacher training on giftedness must go beyond knowledge transmission: it must be based on transformative experiences, where professionals can recognise their needs, engage in dialogue, and co-construct effective solutions.