Why the Term “Gifted” Might Do More Harm Than Good
When we hear the word “gifted” in education, it often conjures images of bright-eyed students acing tests, solving complex problems effortlessly, or dazzling adults with their intellect. For decades, schools have used this label to identify children who demonstrate exceptional abilities, aiming to provide them with specialized support. But what happens when a term meant to uplift ends up dividing, pressuring, or even limiting the very students it seeks to celebrate? A growing number of educators, parents, and even students are questioning whether the “gifted” label is helpful—or if it’s time to rethink how we talk about academic potential.
The Problem with Labels
Labels like “gifted” are shortcuts. They help schools allocate resources and design programs for students with unique needs. But these shortcuts come at a cost. For starters, the term implies that talent is an innate, static trait—something you’re born with, not something you develop. This clashes with what psychologists like Carol Dweck have shown: a “growth mindset,” where abilities are seen as malleable, leads to greater resilience and achievement. When kids are told they’re “gifted,” they may internalize the idea that success should come easily. Struggling with a challenge then becomes a threat to their identity, not a normal part of learning.
Take 12-year-old Mia, for example. Labeled as gifted in elementary school, she thrived in advanced classes until middle school, where the workload intensified. “I started feeling like a fraud,” she admits. “If I was so ‘gifted,’ why was I staying up until midnight just to keep up?” Her story isn’t unique. Many high-achieving kids burnout under the weight of expectations, fearing that asking for help will expose them as “not truly gifted.”
The Exclusion Factor
Another issue is how the “gifted” label can reinforce inequality. Gifted programs often rely on standardized tests or teacher recommendations for entry—systems that historically favor students from privileged backgrounds. A 2021 study found that Black and Hispanic students are significantly underrepresented in gifted programs, even when they show comparable potential. This isn’t just about fairness; it’s about lost opportunity. When labels act as gatekeepers, they perpetuate the myth that only certain kids deserve enrichment.
Then there’s the social impact. Splitting students into “gifted” and “non-gifted” groups can create hierarchies in the classroom. Children left out of these programs may internalize the message that they lack potential, while those included might develop a sense of superiority. Sarah, a middle school teacher, recalls a student refusing to collaborate on a group project, saying, “I’m gifted. I shouldn’t have to work with them.”
The Pressure to Perform
Being labeled “gifted” doesn’t just affect how others see a child—it shapes how they see themselves. Some kids become terrified of failure, equating mistakes with losing their “gifted” status. This pressure can lead to anxiety, perfectionism, or even disengagement. A 2019 study in the Journal of Advanced Academics found that gifted students often report higher levels of stress than their peers, particularly around maintaining grades.
Ironically, the fear of not living up to the label can stifle creativity. Gifted programs sometimes prioritize speed and correctness over exploration, rewarding kids for memorizing formulas rather than experimenting with ideas. As one high schooler put it, “I used to love writing stories, but now I only care about getting A’s. It’s like being ‘gifted’ means I’m not allowed to enjoy learning anymore.”
What Could We Use Instead?
If “gifted” isn’t the right fit, how should we describe students who need additional challenge? Many advocates suggest shifting the focus from fixed traits to behaviors and opportunities. Terms like “advanced learner,” “high-potential student,” or simply “student with strengths in math/science/art” emphasize growth and specificity. Instead of labeling kids, we could label programs: “accelerated math” or “enrichment writing” avoids categorizing the child entirely.
Some schools are experimenting with “talent development” models, where all students receive challenging material tailored to their interests. For instance, a classroom might offer tiered assignments, allowing each student to engage at their own level. This approach reduces comparison and encourages kids to view ability as something that evolves.
Parents and educators can also foster a growth mindset at home. Praising effort (“You worked so hard on this project!”) rather than inherent talent (“You’re so smart!”) helps kids associate success with persistence. When a child faces setbacks, framing them as part of the learning process—“What did this teach you?”—builds resilience.
Rethinking Support Without Labels
Critics might argue that abandoning the “gifted” label could deprive high-ability students of resources they need. But the goal isn’t to eliminate support—it’s to make it more inclusive. Flexible grouping, where students join different groups based on subject or project needs, ensures that help isn’t reserved for a select few. Project-based learning, mentorship programs, and extracurricular clubs can also provide stimulation without rigid categorization.
Consider Finland’s education system, which avoids tracking students into gifted programs. Instead, teachers differentiate instruction within mixed-ability classrooms. The result? Finland consistently ranks among the top countries in global education metrics, with less disparity between high and low achievers.
The Bigger Picture
The debate over the term “gifted” is part of a broader conversation about how we define success. Are we valuing curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking—or just test scores and compliance? By moving away from labels that box kids in, we create space for them to explore diverse passions without fear of losing a coveted identity.
As one former gifted student reflected, “I wish someone had told me it’s okay to be good at some things and not others. Being called ‘gifted’ made me feel like I had to be exceptional at everything, which just isn’t realistic.” Perhaps it’s time to replace our outdated vocabulary with language that celebrates potential—without confining it to a single word.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Why the Term “Gifted” Might Do More Harm Than Good