I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. For a community focused on gifted education and gifted kids at the upper end of that scale, this should be something that we've all read about many times over.
Someone might disagree with the position papers out there but it makes no sense to argue from a position of "Show me something that supports your claim."
https://www.edpost.com/stories/gift...eing-ignored-and-thats-bad-for-all-of-usIn this link, they briefly explain how those kids are being ignored. In districts that use a universal screening approach, they find more Black, Hispanic and low income students. In areas that don't use universal screening to find gifted kids, it's perfectly reasonable to state that they are ignoring such students - particularly the low income ones.
There are plenty of papers out there about how, in districts that rely on teacher referral to gifted programs, black students are not referred to gifted programs with the same frequency as their white or Asian counterparts when they are paired with non-black instructors. That is an example of being ignored. You can find plenty of links covering this but we should all already be familiar with the broad strokes.
We can probably shrink the conversation to the concept of "educational malnourishment". Essentially, too many gifted programs identify students based on achievement rather than on giftedness. They admit to their programs around the 2nd or 3rd grade after discrepancies in educational opportunities have calcified certain achievement differences.
This places students from lower education backgrounds at a disadvantage for identification, either via teacher referral or achievement tests. Hence why universal screening done earlier in the student's academic life id's more black, Hispanic and lower income students -- it seeks to id the students before the school system has placed them behind better resourced students.
But that's not really the point of my post. The point of my post is that this is easily found information for anyone who bothers to look. You can argue about if you agree with the widely claimed causes for those kids being ignored but it doesn't make sense in this day and age to pretend that the claim of students being ignored is so unusual that someone has to source it before it can be addressed seriously.
Frankly, it's dismissive.
https://www.education.purdue.edu/geri/new-publications/gifted-education-in-the-united-states/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-students-odds-of-being-labeled-gifted/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-students-odds-of-being-labeled-gifted/https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/...g%20Gifted%20Students%20of%20Poverty.pdfhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898573.pdfhttps://edublog.scholastic.com/post...are-overlooked-gifted-talented-educationAnyway, there are some links that also address this subject. It's hardly exhaustive but it's an okay place to start.
