The Problem With Labeling Kids “Gifted”—And Why It’s Time to Rethink the Term
Labels stick. Whether it’s a nickname, a job title, or an academic classification, the words we use to define people often shape how they see themselves—and how others treat them. Few labels carry as much weight in education as the term “gifted.” For decades, this word has been used to identify students who demonstrate exceptional academic abilities, creativity, or talent. But as conversations about equity, mental health, and inclusive education grow louder, many parents, educators, and even students are pushing back. Does the term “gifted” do more harm than good? Let’s unpack why this label is sparking frustration and what alternatives might better serve children.
The Myth of the “Gifted” Child
The idea of “giftedness” often implies a fixed trait—something innate, static, and reserved for a select few. Schools use standardized tests, teacher recommendations, or IQ scores to identify these students, offering them specialized programs or accelerated coursework. On the surface, this seems logical: high-achieving kids deserve challenges tailored to their abilities. But critics argue the system is flawed.
For starters, the criteria for “giftedness” are inconsistent and culturally biased. Standardized tests, for example, often favor children from privileged backgrounds who’ve had access to enrichment activities, tutors, or high-quality schools. This creates a cycle where affluent, predominantly white students are overrepresented in gifted programs, while Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are overlooked. A 2023 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Black students are 66% less likely to be labeled “gifted” than their white peers, even when they exhibit similar test scores. The label, then, isn’t just about ability—it’s about systemic inequities.
Moreover, the term suggests that intelligence is a finite resource. Students excluded from the “gifted” category may internalize the message that they’re “not smart enough,” while those labeled as gifted might feel pressured to maintain an unrealistic standard of perfection. As one high schooler put it, “Being called ‘gifted’ felt like a compliment at first, but later it became a prison. I was terrified of failing because I didn’t want to lose that identity.”
The Hidden Costs of Exceptionalism
The pressure to live up to the “gifted” label can take a toll on mental health. Research shows that students in gifted programs often experience higher levels of anxiety, burnout, and imposter syndrome. They’re also more likely to equate self-worth with academic achievement, leaving them vulnerable when they face setbacks. “I felt like I had to be extraordinary all the time,” says Maya, a college student who was labeled gifted in elementary school. “When I struggled in math, I didn’t ask for help because I thought, ‘If I’m gifted, I should just get this.’”
Meanwhile, students outside the “gifted” bubble may miss out on opportunities simply because they weren’t flagged early on. A rigid tracking system can limit their access to advanced classes, passionate teachers, or creative projects, perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy. As educator Dr. Julia Torres notes, “When we sort kids into categories, we send the message that some are destined to soar and others are meant to stay grounded. That’s not education—it’s prophecy.”
What’s in a Name? Language Matters
Language shapes perception, and the term “gifted” carries a heavy cultural load. It implies that talent is a “gift” bestowed upon a lucky few, rather than something that can be cultivated through effort, mentorship, and opportunity. This mindset clashes with what psychologists call a growth mindset—the belief that abilities can develop over time.
Consider the difference between telling a child, “You’re so gifted at math!” versus “You’ve worked hard to build those math skills!” The first statement ties their success to an inherent trait; the second emphasizes agency and effort. Over time, kids praised for effort are more likely to embrace challenges and persist through difficulties. Those labeled “gifted,” however, may avoid risks to protect their “smart” identity.
So, if the term is problematic, what should we use instead? Some schools have adopted phrases like “high potential” or “advanced learners,” which focus on growth rather than fixed ability. Others are moving toward universal screening—assessing all students for strengths and needs—while offering enrichment to anyone who shows interest.
Toward a More Inclusive Model
The backlash against “gifted” programs isn’t about dismissing talented kids or lowering standards. It’s about reimagining education to serve all students equitably. Here’s what that could look like:
1. Ditch the Labels, Embrace Individuality
Instead of sorting kids into categories, educators can focus on personalized learning. Every child has unique strengths and challenges; flexible grouping, project-based learning, and differentiated instruction allow teachers to meet students where they are.
2. Expand Access to Enrichment
Why reserve advanced coursework or creative projects for a select few? Schools can offer optional honors modules, after-school clubs, or mentorship programs open to all. When a child shows curiosity or passion, nurture it—no label required.
3. Train Teachers to Spot Potential
Bias often creeps into referrals for gifted programs. Professional development can help educators recognize talent in underserved populations, whether it’s a bilingual student’s storytelling skills or a quiet thinker’s knack for problem-solving.
4. Focus on Social-Emotional Learning
Academic success isn’t just about IQ. Resilience, empathy, and collaboration matter just as much. Schools that integrate social-emotional learning (SEL) into their curriculum help kids thrive emotionally and academically.
Let Kids Be Kids—Not Labels
At its core, the push to retire the term “gifted” is about rejecting a narrow, hierarchical view of intelligence. Kids are more than test scores or report cards. They’re artists, storytellers, innovators, and dreamers—each with the capacity to grow in unexpected ways.
As parent and advocate Lisa Nguyen shares, “My daughter was never labeled ‘gifted,’ but she taught herself to code at 10 and started a blog about climate change. Labels didn’t define her; her curiosity did.”
It’s time to let go of terms that divide and limit. By creating classrooms where every child feels seen, challenged, and capable, we’re not just changing language—we’re changing lives.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Problem With Labeling Kids “Gifted”—And Why It’s Time to Rethink the Term