Gifted Kid Burnout—Social Media Phenomenon or Mental Health Pandemic?

        Gifted kid burnout—a term coined by youth on the internet to discuss their experiences growing up as a “gifted student.” They are describing perfectionism, the subconscious resistance to challenge, and feelings of low self-worth which they attribute to gifted programs in public schools. While some may write it off as another meme, others might consider the implications of these programs and how they affect students in the long run.

The year 1958 sparked the beginnings of advanced education in the United States. Realizing the deficits in its public education programs during the Space Race, the government passed the National Defense Education Act, which encouraged the promotion of talented students. Decades later, these attempts were modernized into the No Child Left Behind Act and the National Association for Gifted Children’s standards for gifted education (passed in 2002 and 2013, respectively). Many young social media users have grown up with these practices in place, so one must ask— are their complaints a product of normalized society or of mere adolescence?

        Gifted programs are highly selective. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, only about six percent of all students in the United States are enrolled in advanced programs. In urban cities like San Diego, New York, and Chicago, these programs were particularly strong and served as prototypes for smaller schools. Perhaps what made these areas most successful was their emphasis on addressing the psychosocial needs of this population by creating access to psychologists and counselors. This forces one to consider the potential for elitism within these school structures.

Minority students are more likely to be denied access to programs that could potentially benefit them because of culturally biased entrance exams. It has been noted by studies that teachers’ social expectations can influence the success of their students in both positive and negative aspects. This demonstrates the inequity that can subtly sneak through the educational system’s assessments of student abilities. Another concern is the lack of funding for advanced education in rural or impoverished districts. Any potential benefits reaped by more privileged students are lost on countless others. Gifted programs may positively impact students, but the education system itself is riddled with opportunities for unintentional discrimination.

        To fully understand the impacts of these programs, one must first consider the unique population that makes up gifted student bodies. Students with high Intelligence Quotients (IQ) are often quite self-aware, well-adjusted, and resilient in childhood. Many studies show, however, that these positive attributes decrease as the individual enters adolescence and these declines persist through adulthood. This shift could be considered from a psychosocial perspective: students considered to be “gifted” are often isolated or misunderstood by their peers, leading to a sense of ostracism. Furthermore, they are more vulnerable to interpersonal conflicts and few others properly understand their sense of humor. Often non-conformists, these students potentially face more social shortfallings, “ambivalence, and hostility” than their peers. The internet’s viewpoint on gifted burnout aligns with this developmental track, noting the initial feelings of self-worth and enthusiasm about being gifted, and its descent into an anxiety-provoking label.

        Gifted students also face individualistic mental health issues as a population such as “stress, anxiety, depression and destructive perfectionism.” It is estimated that 15-20 percent of high achieving students will struggle with the high expectations set by themselves and others during their academic career and beyond, which can actually reduce their academic success. Evidence suggests that gifted individuals, especially when highly creative or verbally talented, demonstrate higher rates of suicidal behavior and mood disorders in adolescence. There is no direct link between these problems and gifted programs themselves, however, a study in 1989 concluded that students whose parents used the term “gifted” to describe their child were more poorly adjusted. Perhaps it is not the programs themselves, but the high expectations they place on young children that is the stem of “gifted kid burnout.”

        The idea of “gifted kid burnout” is an extremely hard claim to prove or reject. While gifted students appear to be more likely to experience social and emotional issues that positively correlate with their IQ, there is no proof that those issues were caused by the pressures and rigors of their advanced coursework. Labeling children as gifted may increase the risks of perfectionism and academic anxiety, yet it is impossible to sift through the multitudes of confounding variables that are not limited to socioeconomic status, environment, and predisposition for mental illness. In addition, gifted programs can positively present challenges and a sense of community for high-achieving students, yet there are pitfalls such as rejection of minority groups and the formation of educational caste systems that undermine some of these helpful attributes.

So, what can one determine from the dichotomy of results that gifted research procures? For one, access to mental health resources is crucial, not only for this particular population but for all students. With the modern movement against mental health stigmatization, it could finally be possible to provide these resources for all students who need them. In addition, reducing the prejudice that subtly inhabits our educational system is non-negotiable. And finally, these systems must begin recognizing the children who inhabit them not as a product of their IQs, but as growing people who deserve that opportunity that doesn’t cost them their mental health. Whether the concept of “gifted kid burnout” is correct or not, our public education system can do a better job of providing equal access to challenging, effective coursework while supporting their students.