How to prevent “gifted kid burnout” and help every student at the same time
The real problem is that the bar for achievement in the American school system is set so painfully, tragically, ridiculously low.
Because I write about education, the social media algorithm feels compelled to keep throwing “gifted kid burnout” memes into my feed like:
When you were once considered the smart kid everyone believed in but now you’re too depressed to work so everyone is disappointed in you…
When you do really well in your early years of education and now people are disappointed in you and say you’ve wasted your talents…
Being academically gifted in elementary school means that now you are depressed and don’t know how to study…
No former gifted program child has all five: 1) serotonin, 2) healthy coping mechanism, 3) self-esteem, 4) at least two brain cells, 5) functional liver
Oh, boy, I sure do love being perceived as a gifted child. I hope I don’t end up being a perfectionist burnout with depression, anxiety, unfulfilled expectations, and no real interests or goals.
If the internet is to be believed—and, truly, who wouldn’t believe everything they read on the internet, especially on Reddit?—all children once classified as gifted are now anxiety-ridden and depressed with low self-esteem due to growing up and not achieving anything of note, as they are just so gosh-darn brilliant that they can’t decide which of their multiple talents they should concentrate on and/or can’t stick to any one project for long, quitting as soon as they get bored.
These “formerly gifted kids” blame the gifted and talented system for their perceived failures and all subsequent consequences. And while there is nothing I can do for those who believe this and incessantly share it with the world, boy, do I have a solution to nip such an ongoing vicious cycle in the bud!
Because here’s the dirty secret for why the majority of those labeled “gifted” in elementary school fail to “fulfill their potential” in adulthood. It’s not the outside pressure. It’s not the multiple potentiality. It’s not the imposter syndrome. It’s that they were never “gifted” in the first place.
The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is that the bar for achievement in our American school system is set so painfully, tragically, ridiculously low compared to what kids of the same age are learning in the rest of the world, that those capable of doing anything above said pitiful level are erroneously labeled “gifted.” In New York City in 2021, for example, 86 percent of the applicants for the gifted program that begins in kindergarten were deemed eligible—they were labeled, in a word, “gifted.”
But they are not gifted. You are not gifted. We are not gifted. We are perfectly normal kids—each with quirks and peculiarities like any other human being—who will, more than likely, grow up to be perfectly normal adults—complete with further peccadillos. This mediocrity will seem like “not living up to your potential.” Don’t worry. We are living up to our potential. We are the net result of rock bottom expectations.
My family and I immigrated from the Soviet Union, where the politics and the government were awful. But the schools? The schools were good. Very, very good, without needing to separate out the “gifted” kids. Because of my start in life, (once I learned English) I qualified to attend Lowell, San Francisco’s “gifted” high school.
“Ah,” my mother said, “in America, the gifted children are the ones who can read and count.”
She was not wrong. And the same goes for all those “gifted” schools across the country, be they Stuyvesant in New York City, where my husband and two sons went (and the one my younger son dropped out of due to boredom), Thomas Jefferson in Virginia, Boston Latin in Massachusetts, Walnut Hills in Cincinnati, and so on.
So now that we’ve identified the problem and its cause, the solution is obvious: If we unilaterally raise the academic bar in kindergarten through 12th grade, many, many fewer children will be shockingly discovered capable of doing a higher level of work than what’s being offered and thus suffer the curse of being dubbed “gifted” as a result. They will then have a more realistic sense of their true abilities and where they stand as compared to others. They won’t feel singled out. They will be happily “average.” They will be contentedly “normal.” They’ll learn that it’s not just them, but that most kids can do the same level of work—they simply haven’t been presented with the opportunity up to this point. And if, as a side benefit, this change will help all of America’s children receive a superior education, that’ll just be the icing on the proverbial cake.
Now, obviously, even under this new system, there will still be some children who are ahead of the game. All kids—all humans—will perennially and perpetually fall on a spectrum of achievement. Whether that’s due to inherent aptitude (though some would argue there is no such thing), an enhanced drive or work ethic (which some would like to separate from aptitude), or an enriched home environment (which, believe it or not, some would like abolished, as well), there will always be some subset of students that requires more than what a given teacher can provide in a single, heterogeneous classroom. Raising the bar for all children doesn’t mean we should give up on accommodating those who require yet another level of challenge in a given subject. Just don’t call separate classes that present more challenge and rigor “gifted” classrooms! These are simply kids who, in a specific moment of time in a specific subject, would benefit from a different curriculum.
By removing the “gifted” label and demonstrating that they were normal all along, we will prevent many thousands of cases of “gifted kid burn-out” among those who, in the end, could simply “read and count.”
Note: The following elements of the newsletter were compiled by Brandon Wright, Advance’s editor.
QUOTE OF NOTE
“In an ideal world, experts say, there would be universal screening for giftedness (which some districts, but not New York, have embraced), using multiple measures in a thoughtful way, and there would be frequent entry—and exit—points for the programs. In the early elementary years, that would look less like separate gifted programming and a lot more like meeting every kid where they are.”
—Sarah Carr, “We’re testing preschoolers for giftedness. Experts say that doesn’t work,” Hechinger Report, October 31, 2025
RESEARCH REVIEW
“Parenting Bright Minds With Complex Needs: What Concerns Parents of Gifted and Twice-Exceptional Children Most” by Gail Post and Kali Fedor, Gifted Education International, OnlineFirst, January 16, 2026
“This comparative quantitative study examined the worries and concerns of parents raising gifted (G) and gifted twice-exceptional (G/2e) children. A total of 847 parents of children ages 6-18 participated in an anonymous online survey designed to identify and compare areas of worry and concern among parents of G and G/2e children. The survey included demographic items and Likert-scale questions addressing academic, social-emotional, motivational, behavioral, and future-oriented concerns. Participants were recruited through self-selection after viewing study invitations shared via social media and gifted associations. Data analysis revealed several areas of significant findings, as well as common areas of worry and concern across groups, with parents of G/2e children reporting heightened concerns. Findings underscore the importance of integrated support structures for families navigating the complexities of raising gifted and gifted twice-exceptional children. Implications for educators, administrators, and counselors are discussed, with attention to improving family-school partnerships and access to specialized services.”
“Representation of Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted and Talented Services: 2006–2019 Tennessee Trends” by Jeannette Mancilla-Martinez, Min Hyun Oh, Elizabeth Zagata, and Jiaxin Jessie Wang, Gifted Child Quarterly, OnlineFirst, December 20, 2025
“Students from homes where a language other than English is used—formally known as non–English-language background (NELB) students in schools—have historically been viewed as an “at-risk” group. Their persistent underrepresentation in gifted programs warrants research on their intellectually gifted (IG) representation to ensure that they receive the necessary support regardless of language backgrounds. We describe NELB students’ IG representation and explore their likelihood of IG representation (2006–2019) by language status (Current English learner [EL], Former EL, and Never EL). Results showed variability in IG representation and placement likelihood. Notably, compared with native English speakers (NES), (1) Never ELs were consistently more likely to have IG status, (2) Former ELs were generally similarly or less likely to have IG, and (3) Current ELs consistently less likely to receive IG services. Findings contribute to the understudied area of NELB students’ representation in IG programs and offer nuanced insight by language status.”
“Giftedness and Academic Success: How are Parent–Child and Teacher–Student Relations Related to Gifted Children’s Underachievement?” by Claire Baudry, Line Massé, Jessica Pearson, and Marjorie Simard, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, December 19, 2025
“Gifted children may underachieve in various subjects, putting them at risk of dropping out of school. Several factors can influence both achievement and underachievement. In the understanding of these children’s success or difficulties at school, teacher–student and parent–child relationships should be considered. The objective of this article is to document the level of performance and underachievement of 71 gifted children ages 6 to 12 and to assess the contribution of both type of relationships. Results indicate that gifted children demonstrate overall good academic results, yet an appreciable proportion exhibit underachievement. Autonomy in school tasks is a significant factor enhancing children performance. Therefore, educators are encouraged to facilitate their autonomy within the classroom and during learning activities. Although the parent–child relationship is not linked to performance or underachievement, it is nevertheless important to pursue the study of this variable, given its influence on learning and academic success.”
WRITING WORTH READING
“U.S. colleges need more men. Trump’s new policies inadvertently disadvantage them, especially at selective schools” —The Hechinger Report, January 20, 2026, Catharine Hill
“Missouri lawmakers seek to improve gifted education in public schools” —Missouri Independent, Annelise Hanshaw, January 16, 2026
“What’s going on with gifted education?” —UConn Today, Mac Murray, January 15, 2026
“NY GOP gov hopeful Bruce Blakeman backs ‘gifted and talented’ schools slammed by Mamdani, activists as racist” —New York Post, Matthew Fischetti, Vaughn Golden, and David Propper, January 15, 2026
“Rising and falling in America” —Informed Choice, Michael McShane, January 13, 2026
“In an era of ‘America First’, International Baccalaureate schools still thrive” —The 74, Jo Napolitano, January 12, 2026
“Science says we’ve been nurturing ‘gifted’ kids all wrong” —Science Daily, Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau, December 21, 2025
“Bill de Blasio’s diversity push for these schools lowered admissions standards—and didn’t increase diversity” —Reason, Jack Nicastro, December 3, 2025
“The politics of whether we need more or less ‘gifted and talented’ education” —Maryland Matters, Kalman Hettleman, November 25, 2025
“Should We Still Label Children as ‘Gifted’?” —New York Times, Natalie Proulx, November 19, 2025
“Listen to parent demand! An oversubscribed school or program is a signal” —Aldeman on Education, Chad Aldeman, November 14, 2025
“We’re testing preschoolers for giftedness. Experts say that doesn’t work.” —Hechinger Report, Sarah Carr, October 31, 2025
 | A guest post by
|
Thanks for sharing this comprehensive overview of the challenges schools face, and the complexity of educating gifted children. I agree that the gifted "label" is problematic. But gifted kids often have so much more than cognitive smarts - intensity, sensitivity, and multipotentiality, as you mention, that need to be addressed. They often thrive in cognitively challenging environments, and the schools frequently let them down. It is quite a complex situation to resolve these problems.
And thanks for including the research article I just published with my colleague, Kali Fedor, in your overview of research!