How many private U.S. schools advertise that they serve only highly gifted students, and what admissions criteria do they use?
Executive summary
There is no authoritative national tally in the available reporting of how many private U.S. schools explicitly advertise that they serve only “highly gifted” students; the sources consulted instead offer directories, individual school claims and admissions patterns but not a verified count [1] [2] [3]. What can be documented from those sources is a consistent admissions toolkit used across many schools that position themselves for gifted learners: IQ or standardized test cutoffs, percentile thresholds on normed assessments, school records and grades, teacher recommendations and interviews—plus program-specific variations for older students using SAT/ACT scores [4] [5] [1] [6].
1. Why a single national number is absent: directories and websites, not censuses
None of the reporting supplied attempts a census of private schools that self-identify as serving exclusively “highly gifted” students; instead, resources such as GiftedReady and Niche compile lists and profiles that mix private specialty schools, public magnets and GATE programs but do not produce a validated nationwide count [1] [2]. PrivateSchoolReview and specialist sites like Hoagies’ Gifted provide inventories and guidance for families but stop short of claiming a comprehensive tally, reflecting the fragmented ecology of gifted education across states and school types [4] [3].
2. Which schools explicitly advertise that mission (examples, not an exhaustive list)
Several well-known institutions do advertise a focused mission for highly or profoundly gifted learners: Mirman School in Los Angeles presents itself as “mission‑bound to serve highly gifted children” [7], the Davidson Academy highlights that it is specifically designed for profoundly gifted students and groups by ability rather than age [8] [9], and smaller private programs such as Oak Crest Academy and Long Island School for the Gifted market themselves to gifted families in their materials [10] [4]. These examples illustrate the pattern but do not imply a complete roster; the reporting does not provide a master list of every private school making that claim [1] [2].
3. The admissions toolbox: tests, percentiles, records, interviews
Across the reporting the most frequently cited admissions criteria are cognitive or achievement testing (IQ tests with commonly referenced cutoffs in the 125–140 range for private gifted schools), nationally normed assessments with percentile thresholds, and academic records including grades and standardized test scores; older applicants are sometimes assessed with SAT/ACT scores [4] [5] [1]. Admissions processes often supplement scores with teacher recommendations, family interviews, student visits or portfolios and review of school records to assess readiness, curiosity and fit—criteria that show up in both private school descriptions and public magnet/G&T program guidelines [1] [11] [9].
4. Variations and gatekeeping: how “highly gifted” is operationalized
“Highly gifted” is operationalized unevenly: some schools set explicit IQ or percentile cutoffs, others consider a combination of scores and qualitative evidence of advanced ability, and some use ability grouping by curriculum rather than an absolute numeric barrier [4] [1] [8]. Public magnet and G&T programs add layers—such as sibling priority or residency rules and diversity initiatives—that private institutions usually do not follow, creating different access dynamics even when both target high-ability students [12] [11].
5. Competing narratives and implicit agendas to watch for
Directories and school marketing emphasize fit and specialized pedagogy—messages that benefit private schools by signaling exclusivity—while public program pages stress procedural fairness and diversity, reflecting institutional and political priorities [7] [12]. Reporting also shows a tension: parents and advisers seek objective cutoffs (IQ percentiles, test scores) but schools often retain holistic discretion, which can mask barriers tied to geography, wealth and test preparation; the supplied sources document the criteria used, but they do not quantify how many applicants are excluded or how demographic patterns play out [4] [5] [1].