The G Word: Tension in the Terminology
Addressing the needs of highly able learners has long been a source of political tension in schools. The field of gifted education has suffered the slings and arrows of competing educational priorities: an unresolved tension between the notions of equity and equal; a resolutely egalitarian society; the rise of anti-intellectualism; confusing and misunderstood terminology, and uncomfortable associations with the Matthew effect – the idea that further advantage is given to those who are already advantaged.
Tension has risen to such levels that many schools now hesitate to use the word gifted, preferring instead to choose an alternative term that is seen as less value-laden. Gifted, talented, highly able, very highly able, exceptionally able, highly capable, high potential, exceptional learners, and many more idiosyncratic descriptors are used by individual schools.
However, within the field of gifted education, the term gifted is nothing more than a convenient shorthand way of referring to a very complex concept encompassing the whole range of human experience, including cognitive and socioemotional factors. When educators and researchers in the field use the term, they are assuming a shared understanding of the meaning behind it. When many parents and teachers and other members of society without that shared understanding hear the word gifted, they think of something that has been given, an entirely positive and un-earned package of entitlements that has been bestowed on selected individuals. The term gifted has become conflated with special, worthwhile, unique. And if some children are gifted, then others are ungifted, ordinary, average. Whatever the original intent behind the word, the truth is that it has become associated with negative connotations of elitism.
However we may personally feel about the term gifted, It is important to acknowledge this tension because schools and school administrators are understandably very wary of alienating their school community or parent population. In recognising the controversial nature of the issue, schools can spend valuable time and energy deliberating on terminology rather than focusing on services. However, navigating this tension is essential if we are to effectively meet the needs of highly able learners.
Related to the terminology question is the issue of labelling. With the recent popularity of the Mindset movement, many educators are concerned that labelling a child as gifted will promote the development of a fixed mindset. They worry that students will develop an image of themselves as ‘smart’ and that this will lead to arrogance, a lack of effort, risk-aversion or a host of other potentially damaging attitudes. Additionally, if the label ‘gifted’ is seen as a badge of honour, won’t all students want it? Or won’t all parents want it for their child? And won’t we be damaging the self-esteem of those students who aren’t labelled?
These are all legitimate questions and concerns that a school will need to engage with and be prepared to answer. They do not have to and should not serve as barriers to action, merely point to an opportunity for education and awareness. Maintaining the focus on the needs of students, rather than allowing efforts to be derailed by terminology or labelling issues, will ease concerns and smooth the way towards effective provisions.
