The Problem with “Gifted”: Why This Label Might Do More Harm Than Good
Imagine this: A 9-year-old child sits in a classroom, nervously twisting their pencil. They’ve just been told they’re part of the “gifted” program—a term that’s supposed to celebrate their abilities. But instead of feeling proud, they feel uneasy. What does this label even mean? they wonder. Will my friends still like me if I’m “gifted”? What happens if I stop being “gifted” someday?
This scenario isn’t uncommon. For decades, the term “gifted” has been used in education to identify students who demonstrate exceptional academic potential. But as conversations about equity, mental health, and inclusive learning grow louder, many are questioning whether this label is helpful—or if it’s quietly causing harm. Let’s unpack why the term “gifted” might not be the golden ticket we once thought.
The Weight of a Label
Labels stick. When we call a child “gifted,” we’re not just acknowledging their skills; we’re assigning them an identity. This can create unintended pressure. A student labeled “gifted” might feel they must stay gifted—that mistakes or struggles are failures rather than natural parts of learning. Researchers have found that children in gifted programs often experience higher rates of anxiety and perfectionism, partly because they internalize the expectation to constantly meet an idealized standard.
Then there’s the flip side: What about the kids who aren’t labeled as gifted? Implicitly, the term suggests that other students are “ungifted” or “ordinary,” fostering a hierarchy in classrooms. This dichotomy can damage self-esteem and discourage children from exploring their unique strengths. After all, talent isn’t a binary switch; it’s a spectrum that evolves over time.
The Myth of Fixed Intelligence
The term “gifted” also reinforces the outdated idea that intelligence is fixed—a trait you’re born with, not something you develop. Psychologist Carol Dweck’s work on “growth mindset” highlights how harmful this belief can be. When students think their abilities are static, they avoid challenges for fear of proving they’re not “smart enough.” By contrast, those who see intelligence as malleable tend to embrace effort and persist through difficulties.
Labeling a child as “gifted” risks locking them into a fixed mindset. They might shy away from subjects where they don’t immediately excel, terrified of tarnishing their “gifted” status. Meanwhile, students excluded from the label may assume they lack innate talent and stop trying altogether.
Equity Concerns: Who Gets to Be “Gifted”?
Critics argue that gifted programs often replicate systemic inequalities. Historically, these programs have disproportionately favored white, affluent students, while children from marginalized communities—especially Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous students—are underrepresented. Bias in testing, uneven access to enrichment opportunities, and subjective teacher referrals all play a role in this imbalance.
When we frame giftedness as an inherent trait, we ignore how factors like socioeconomic status and cultural background influence a child’s access to resources. A student with limited exposure to advanced math or science might still have extraordinary potential—but without early opportunities, they’re less likely to be identified as “gifted.”
Alternatives to the “Gifted” Framework
If the term “gifted” is flawed, what’s a better approach? Many educators advocate for ditching labels altogether and focusing on personalized learning. Instead of segregating students into “gifted” and “non-gifted” tracks, schools could offer flexible, interest-based programs where all kids explore advanced material at their own pace.
For example, a classroom might use “cluster grouping,” mixing students of varying abilities for most lessons but allowing small groups to dive deeper into topics that excite them. This model avoids rigid categorization while still nurturing curiosity and critical thinking.
Another alternative is emphasizing effort-based praise over innate ability. Teachers and parents can celebrate persistence, creativity, and problem-solving—qualities that apply to every child, regardless of perceived “giftedness.” This shift helps students see achievement as a process, not a fixed trait.
Redefining Success Beyond Labels
The discomfort with the term “gifted” reflects a broader cultural shift. More parents and educators are rejecting one-size-fits-all metrics of success and embracing the idea that every child has unique gifts—whether they’re academic, artistic, empathetic, or entrepreneurial.
Consider Finland, a country often praised for its education system. Finnish schools avoid tracking students into ability groups until late adolescence, focusing instead on collaboration and holistic development. The result? Consistently high academic performance and lower stress levels among students.
What Can Parents and Educators Do?
Change starts with awareness. Here are practical steps to move beyond the “gifted” label:
1. Use specific feedback. Instead of saying, “You’re so smart!” try, “I love how you worked through that problem step by step.”
2. Advocate for inclusive programs. Support school initiatives that provide enrichment for all students, not just a select few.
3. Normalize struggle. Teach kids that confusion and mistakes are part of learning, not proof they’re “failing.”
4. Celebrate diverse talents. Recognize skills like kindness, teamwork, and resilience alongside academic achievements.
Final Thoughts
The term “gifted” isn’t inherently bad—it’s the baggage that comes with it. When we reduce children to labels, we overlook their complexity and potential. By fostering environments where growth, curiosity, and effort are valued above static definitions of intelligence, we can create classrooms where every child feels capable of achieving greatness.
So, does anyone else dislike the term “gifted”? Absolutely—and their concerns are worth hearing. Let’s retire the outdated hierarchies and build an education system that sees the “gift” in every student.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Problem with “Gifted”: Why This Label Might Do More Harm Than Good