Why the Term “Gifted” Might Do More Harm Than Good
Have you ever cringed when someone describes a child as “gifted”? You’re not alone. For decades, the label has been used to identify students with exceptional intellectual abilities, but a growing number of educators, parents, and even former “gifted” kids are questioning its value. What sounds like a compliment often carries unintended consequences, creating division, pressure, and confusion in classrooms and beyond. Let’s unpack why this seemingly positive term is sparking debate—and what alternatives might better serve children.
The Problem with Labels
Labels stick. When a child is called “gifted,” it can shape how teachers, peers, and even the child themselves view their potential. Suddenly, their identity becomes tied to academic performance. “Giftedness” often implies a fixed trait—an innate, unchangeable quality—which clashes with modern understandings of how intelligence develops. Research by psychologist Carol Dweck on “growth mindset” shows that praising effort over innate ability fosters resilience and motivation. Yet the “gifted” label does the opposite, suggesting that success is predetermined rather than earned through hard work.
This creates pressure. Imagine being the “smart kid” who aces every test. What happens when you struggle? For many labeled as gifted, the fear of failure becomes paralyzing. A 2019 study in the Journal of Advanced Academics found that gifted students often experience higher rates of anxiety and perfectionism. The label sets an expectation that’s impossible to maintain, leading some to burnout or disengagement.
Exclusion and Inequality
The “gifted” label also raises questions about fairness. Gifted programs often rely on standardized tests or teacher recommendations for enrollment, methods riddled with bias. Studies show that students from affluent families, predominantly white and Asian communities, are disproportionately identified as gifted. Meanwhile, Black, Hispanic, and low-income students—even those with comparable abilities—are overlooked.
This isn’t just about representation; it’s about opportunity. Gifted programs frequently offer enriched curricula, experienced teachers, and extracurricular resources. When access to these advantages hinges on a flawed labeling system, it perpetuates inequality. As one parent remarked, “Calling some kids ‘gifted’ implies others aren’t—and that’s not true. Every child has strengths, but not every child gets the same chances to show them.”
The Myth of the “Gifted” Archetype
The term also reinforces stereotypes. Popular culture loves the “genius” narrative—the quirky, socially awkward prodigy who’s light-years ahead of peers. But this narrow image ignores the diversity of giftedness. Some excel in art or leadership, not math or science. Others may have learning disabilities alongside their talents (a phenomenon called “twice exceptional”). By reducing “gifted” to a one-size-fits-all category, we overlook individuality and create unrealistic expectations.
Moreover, the label can alienate kids from their peers. Being singled out as “gifted” might lead to isolation or bullying. One Reddit user shared, “I was placed in a gifted program in elementary school. Suddenly, my old friends stopped inviting me to hang out. They thought I was ‘too smart’ for them.” Social development is just as critical as academic growth, yet the gifted label often sidelines it.
Rethinking How We Support Talented Students
If the term “gifted” is so problematic, what’s the alternative? Many advocates suggest shifting focus to personalized learning. Instead of segregating students based on arbitrary labels, schools could offer flexible, challenge-based opportunities for all. For example, “cluster grouping” allows students to work on advanced material in specific subjects without removing them from mainstream classrooms.
Another approach is emphasizing potential over perfection. Programs that teach critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration benefit everyone, not just those deemed “gifted.” Finland’s education system, consistently ranked among the world’s best, avoids tracking students into ability groups. Instead, it prioritizes equity, teacher training, and holistic development—a model that has reduced achievement gaps without labels.
Parents and teachers can also reframe how they discuss abilities. Phrases like “You worked so hard on this!” or “I love how you tackled that problem” reinforce effort and strategy. This language aligns with growth mindset principles, helping kids see intelligence as malleable rather than fixed.
What Do Former “Gifted Kids” Say?
Adults who grew up with the label offer unique insights. Some credit gifted programs for stimulating their curiosity, but many describe long-term struggles. “I spent years believing my worth depended on being the best,” says Mara, a former gifted student. “When I got to college and couldn’t keep up, I felt like a fraud.” Others highlight how the label overshadowed their non-academic interests. “I loved painting, but my parents only cared about my math scores,” recalls James. “It took years to rediscover my passion.”
These stories underscore a key point: labeling children—positively or negatively—can limit how they see themselves. As educator Ken Robinson famously argued, human potential is diverse, dynamic, and distinct. A single word like “gifted” can’t capture that complexity.
Moving Beyond the Label
Criticizing the term “gifted” doesn’t mean ignoring children’s unique needs. Some students do require advanced coursework or mentorship to stay engaged. The issue lies in how we identify and support them. Universal screening tools, project-based learning, and teacher training in differentiated instruction can help schools nurture talent without fostering elitism.
It’s also time to confront the underlying mindset. Why do we feel the need to rank children’s abilities so early? Childhood isn’t a race; it’s a time for exploration, mistakes, and growth. By letting go of labels like “gifted,” we might create environments where every student feels valued—not for what they are, but for who they’re becoming.
So, does anyone else dislike the term “gifted”? Absolutely. And their concerns aren’t just about semantics—they’re about building a system that celebrates potential in all its forms. After all, every child deserves to feel capable, curious, and confident, regardless of the words we use to describe them.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Why the Term “Gifted” Might Do More Harm Than Good