Champagne Problems for All: The Pitfalls of Gifted Student Identity Development in the Stereotypical American Public School System
By Serena Weil
In the dark winter of early 2021, a year into pandemic lockdowns and TikTok’s subsequent attainment of the public eye, a new term appeared on the screens of former gifted kids nationwide: “gifted kid burnout.” In recent history, a growing openness surrounding conversations about mental health has become palpable on social media. And with the highly personalized algorithms of today’s social media platforms, specifically TikTok, former gifted children have experienced the ability to find each other and discuss their shared experiences with ease: the false promises, extra high expectations, social isolation, misconstrued self-perception, eventual depression and anxiety, and other drawbacks of becoming an adult who grew up labeled a “gifted” child. In the highly specific environment of American public schools, labels tend to follow students and predict social success and happiness for years to come; the American trope of school stereotypes has become somewhat legendary over the past 50 years, permeating films, television, and other forms of media to an unavoidable level. Calling an elementary-aged child “gifted” is somewhat pointless: although meant as a compliment, the appointment tends to have a drastic boomerang effect in which being intellectually advanced early on turns to feeling behind in life socially, emotionally and often intellectually. Gifted education in the United States has been hotly debated and criticized since its birth, but necessary improvements to the system may not always need to come from within. The gifted program itself is not necessarily the cause of gifted kid burnout; instead it is the problematic context of the American public school (and its stereotypes) that the program operates within. Though media stereotypes that American students inflict on each other may never disappear completely, there is hope for both gifted kid burnout and labeling to diminish over time. In order to alleviate the weight of gifted kid burnout for generations to come, American educators must not only support gifted youth in a more holistic manner, but ultimately should unite to influence social change in the school setting by divesting from the toxic grasp of stereotypes, informing a more free-thinking and bright future for all students.
Though all children face challenges unique to them as a mere part of growing up, the specific hurdles associated with giftedness and the gifted program have relentlessly prevailed despite documentation and awareness. The reason for such a grand delay in addressing the following issues is unknown, perhaps due to a lack of foresight regarding future outcomes. But now that “gifted kid burnout” is trending on TikTok, it is evident that the following statement derived from a study on the happiness of students should have been taken more seriously:
“research points to a good number of potential risk factors and difficulties associated with one’s giftedness that may upset one’s emotional stability, including: a-synchronic development (e.g., having the emotional capacity of a 10 year old and the cognitive capacity of a 15 year old); unrealistically high parental performance expectations for their gifted child; parental rejection of a child if she fails to meet parental performance expectations; heavy social pressures to excel in school; negative labeling and stereotyping (e.g., “nerds”, “geeks”, “bookworms”, “eggheads”); bullying by classmates; and isolation from normative peer groups” (Zeidner).
Notably, these “risk factors and difficulties” take on the form of effects of being in a gifted program, rather than inherent challenges of a gifted student. These pressures reflect the weight of the gifted label and subsequent reinforcement from the student’s community. For a small child, these notions are confusing on an interpersonal level, regardless of academic ability. Whether the student believes in their own giftedness or not, or merely senses the attitudes forming around them, they are pushed into the position of needing to perform.
The pressures placed on gifted students when they may not be old enough to understand such expectations creates a dissonance that typically leads to perfectionism. In fact, “the notion that perfectionism is a feature of such students pervades the gifted literature” (Grugan et al). The same study, “Perfectionism in Academically Gifted Students: A Systematic Review,” further details that “students identified as both academically gifted and highly perfectionistic have reported problematic achievement-related attitudes and negative emotional reactions to perceived imperfection in their academic studies” (Grugan et al). Though being exclusively gifted or perfectionistic can create challenges for a child, the combination of both tends to provoke an isolating and potentially damaging emotional cycle. Furthermore, “the success of gifted students with perfectionism may come at a high price: seeking achievement to meet high standards while suffering from self-doubt and fear of failure” (Fletcher and Speirs Neumeister). Somehow, these dysfunctional paradoxes of self-awareness are nonetheless considered reasonable at a young age as perception of both the self and the world around them is still developing. However, such a fragile balance between high expectations and low self-esteem can lead to burnout when a child becomes accustomed to this mental flux, allowing a harsh perfectionism to become habitual.
Most students wrestle with the development of their identity, and having grown up with a pronounced distinction of academic difference may add an extra layer of preconceived notions. It is incredible how quickly young children can become aware of who they do and do not want to be, largely in part to the television shows and movies made for kids that center so largely on stereotypical identities. In a concerning amount of media centering on American high schools, stereotypes of students are portrayed as essential to the plot, or the plot in and of itself. These shows and movies act as a Pavlov’s bell, conditioning youth to see various stereotypes pitted against each other and played up to exacerbate difference. As if it was not hard enough to generate a decent level of self-concept and confidence, supposedly innocent shows and movies attach a value to an identity and put it in a box. For the majority of students who have not been placed into the gifted program, they are free to choose and create themselves. Meanwhile, gifted children, with a long-internalized one-word moniker for all that they are, do not have that choice on a genuine level- unless they choose to fake it instead. It does not help that although “there is evidence that the high cognitive abilities of gifted children are accompanied by a keen sense for social situations that is beneficial in social interactions… there is a long history of the stereotype that gifted children are typically outcasts, who are not accepted by their peers” (Vogl and Preckel). Though gifted students may not know the details and long history of research, they see the parts that the “smart” kids play in make-believe television schools; not just one school, but stereotypes that carry across the make-believe television schools of the nation and stretch back decades.
I wrote my college essay about balancing my various identities despite the earliest and most prominent label I was cognizant of: gifted. At seven years old, I knew very little besides the fact that I was being taken out of classes to take tests that made the adults call me especially smart for second grade. Like many other young gifted students, I was a perfectionist, and also utterly confused about the magnitude of the label of gifted- oh no! I wanted to be a beautiful Hollywood actress, but instead whatever higher power that may be assigned me the role of gifted kid with glasses. The more that I resisted the stereotype bestowed upon me, the more impossible it felt to detach myself from it. Many “gifted adolescents struggle to develop a sense of self-identity because they are faced with contradictory messages about what is valued by their specific culture and what goals they should therefore be pursuing” (Tapper and Abbiss). Gifted students are simultaneously stuck in one identity while being stretched and pulled in a myriad of other directions, often with the expectation of higher maturity and production levels. Not only does this process of identity negotiation prove difficult given the popularity of the preconceived notions, “researchers have maintained that the pressures of adolescent identity development are exacerbated for gifted and talented young people (Luus and Watters 2012; Neihart 2006; Vialle et al. 2007). Dai (2010) argued that for students who are highly able, ‘high aspirations and self-expectations, sometimes along with high social expectations, add stress to their lives in a way typically not felt by others’” (Tapper and Abbiss). Whereas ignorance would be bliss, the classic symptoms of a gifted child do not aid in the process of identity development.
Intelligence can be both a blessing and a curse; and the phrase repeats over and over in my mind that smarter people are often sadder because they are more aware and attuned to the world around them. Ideally, educators of gifted students must understand and operate under the knowledge that “early identification and counseling of gifted students struggling with perfectionism will be critical in forming healthy self-beliefs and achievement goals that will allow gifted students to realize their full potential” (Fletcher and Speirs Neumeister). However, the high prevalence of perfectionism in the gifted program can normalize competition and being hard on oneself to a point where it is undetectable. As time goes on and perfectionism thrives, associated mental health challenges can arise. Furthermore, “the main challenges for gifted adults who seek therapy are addressing painful school and childhood experiences, high sensitivity, emotional intensity, existential depression, perfectionism, multi-potentiality, relationship difficulties, and suicide ideation” (Rinn and Bishop). Ultimately, the pressures of a perfectionistic mindset during crucial stages of identity development have detrimental effects. Gifted students may receive less supportive attention in regards to their mental health under the false guise of being more mature. With this lack of adults addressing these issues early on, certain messages are suggested to gifted kids. There’s the line of thought that because gifted children are comparatively bright and potentially cognitively years ahead of other students, they should be able to better understand themselves and the world around them, which leads to harmful assumption making, unanswered questions, and unaddressed emotions. Standing out in such a way in an American public school environment can require attentive care and guidance. Furthermore, serious perfectionism applied to figuring out one’s identity is stifling and can furthermore delay the addressment of related issues for years to come. Thus those who suffer under the radar and are academically praised instead of emotionally nurtured are placed on an inevitable and frustrating path towards burnout.
To understand why the effects of growing up gifted can have such strong aftershocks, we must understand the framework of the social education of American children and the magnitude of stereotyping. When the status quo is fitting in, “many gifted students are coping with feelings of difference at a time when being the same as everyone else is the more accepted pathway to high social status in school. In this context, a gifted student may perceive that excelling in a certain way—often academically—is not valued by the adolescent peer culture and has negative social ramifications” (Tapper and Abbiss). Externally, there are “stereotypical understandings of what constitutes a “typical” gifted student: the consistently high-achieving but socially inept young person” (Tapper and Abbiss). “High-achieving but socially inept” characters appear frequently on screen in children’s programs, typically in comedic and quick moments. They are not the focus of the coming-of-age stories projected on screen, but rather a foil to the normalcy of the starring characters. This reflects how growing up in a country that values the labor of future workers more than the emotional and social development of its children can feel like a race to the finish line, and the gifted students are supposedly already there, or far ahead of the curve. While students who are not in gifted programs get to experience the frozen moment in time of being a schoolchild, gifted students are often robbed of their innocence and forced to forgo a typical school experience in the name of great academic achievement and assumed maturity. But the facade of being “mature for your age” fades past adolescence, creating a debilitating loss of identity.
Furthermore, perfectionism prevails as gifted students come of age in their own ways. Although “one can assume that with increasing age, students develop a more differentiated and realistic view of themselves and their social situation,” (Vogl and Preckel) research reveals that “once these students get into schools or colleges with other gifted students, however, they are at increased risk for stress and anxiety related to their perfectionism if they solely evaluate their competence relative to other students” (Fletcher and Speirs Neumeister). Ideally, the gifted child grows out of the challenges of perfectionism by college, but being assigned or trapped in such a social identity for a majority of one’s young life can have lasting effects. “Gifted Adults: A Systematic Review and Analysis of the Literature” uncovers that “gifted adults have the following characteristics, among others: complex intellectual ability, childlike emotions, feelings of being fundamentally different from others, driven by their giftedness, feelings of being overwhelmed by their own creativity, introversion, need for solitude, need for meaning, individualized methods of learning, able to see patterns of development and growth (trends), need for truth, perfectionism, feelings of being misunderstood, difficulty in understanding the behaviors of others, strong sense of humor, difficulty with authority figures, and strong moral convictions” (Rinn and Bishop). Thus the effects of being different and growing up gifted extend far beyond academic achievement. The same study shows that in terms of relationship statuses of students, “among the gifted group, 47.8% of them were single and 50% were married, compared with 28.9% single and 68.9% married in the comparison group” (Rinn and Bishop). This data may trace back to the records of “gifted students reporting that anxieties around peer relationships and the struggle to be accepted into groups created the most stress for them at school” (Tapper and Abbiss). Dissatisfaction in a personal, social, emotional, and academic sense is a surefire trigger of burnout, especially after years of taking on intellectual challenges and demanding schoolwork.
With the realization of the eventual failure of the promises bestowed upon young gifted children, it is no wonder that masses of formerly gifted twentysomething students are relating so deeply to the struggles of burnout. The guise that stereotypes and feelings of difference at a young age would lead to great success has let down a generation, and cases of disappointment have surely worsened as the job market has taken a hit from the Covid-19 pandemic. Though the problem may not be new, time spent reflecting and locked down during the pandemic has likely led to a realization or admittance for the majority of young people, gifted students included, that they are not where they thought they would be at this stage of life. While research shows that “subjective well-being influences motivation, which, in turn, affects effort, participation, and subsequent achievement” (Vogl and Preckel), the opposite has taken place at a rapid rate, and it must be admitted that the kids are not alright. Common themes of “gifted kid burnout” TikToks include dropping out of college or highschool, failing classes, and the feeling of being perpetually not good enough. I face those same fears each time I write; the hardest part of getting work done in college is the mental gymnastics of being okay with continuing to try despite the lingering threat of less-than-perfect work, grades, or outcomes.
Though the greater debate of elitism in gifted education may make burnout sound like a champagne problem, the reality is that it is a symptom of a greater problem facing the American education system. The ideals of school stereotypes are antithetical to education and push labels that cannot be upheld; it seems as if a holistic view of students as complete human beings is void from the education system. TikTok’s recent “gifted kid burnout” trend can clue educators into the problems that run rampant in schools, often outside of the focus and reach of the adults working in schools. But a quick viewing of any handful of movies set in American public schools and produced in the last fifty years can clue anyone into the situation. It is evident to all that labels are harmful, and either the problem is too big or not pressing enough to tackle. To remove the label of gifted from classes may lead to great strides in the system, leading to harmony in which neither the students in or out of gifted classes feel alienated. Additionally, as older Gen-Z students take on roles in the professional world, there is hope that those who take on writing or media roles will have the scope to point children’s films and television programming in a new direction, free of the stereotypes that kids can choose to look up to or down at. Perhaps TikTok represents a positive new form of media in this sense, with an algorithm that helps the user find real people who are like them and share similar experiences, without attaching a value or label to it. It has allowed “gifted kid burnouts” from all over the country to find each other and find comfort in that identity. There is much work to be done for future, past, and present gifted children, and #giftedkidburnout has sparked the transformation.
Works Cited
Fletcher, K. L., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2012). Research on perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 668–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21623
Grugan, M. C., Hill, A. P., Madigan, D. J., Donachie, T. C., Olsson, L. F., & Etherson, M. E. (2021, April 7). Perfectionism in Academically Gifted Students: A Systematic Review . Springer Link. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://link-springer-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/article/10.1007/s10648-021-09597-7.
Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795
Tapper, L., & Abbiss, J. (2015). Finding a “fit”: Gifted and talented adolescents’ identity negotiations. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(2), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0013-0
Vogl, K., & Preckel, F. (2013). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513795
Zeidner, M. (2020, February 27). “Don’t worry—be happy”: The sad state of happiness research in gifted students. Taylor & Francis Online. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www-tandfonline-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/full/10.1080/13598139.2020.1733392.