Recognizing and supporting musically gifted children: Social distinction or social justice?

10.8.2025 2 Like 0 kommenttia Guadalupe López Íñiguez

This blog post breaks down some of the widespread misconceptions and biases regarding gifted individuals that are firmly held by an excessive number of members within society. Gifted students are often forgotten in conversations that aim to be inclusive. Let’s make sure that inclusion truly means everyone—including the gifted.

Sensitivities around the words “gifted” and “talented”

The words gifted and talented can stir strong emotions in people. Frequently, during my lectures on musical prodigies and the education of gifted individuals in music, I politely request that the audience members raise their hands if they believe in the existence of giftedness. Typically, fewer than 10% of them respond affirmatively. While some individuals who refrain from raising their hands may do so due to social desirability in a society that struggles to appreciate those with high abilities, many—including gifted individuals themselves (!)—hold strong objections to the concept. This situation is unfortunate, and I hope this blog post sheds some light on the reasons behind it.

For some, those two words “Which-Must-Not-Be-Named” (“You-Know-Which”), conjure images of exclusive programs, academic competition, or privilege disguised as merit. In an era where educational institutions are justifiably prioritizing inclusion and equity, there are those who question if gifted education fosters social disparities or perpetuates elitism and ableism. This apprehension or concern is valid, as all educational frameworks ought to be scrutinized through the perspectives of justice and fairness. Nevertheless, this concern lacks substantial justification…

At first glance, gifted students may not appear to be an underserved group. They’re often seen as “the lucky ones” who excel academically and don’t need additional support. But this perception is both misleading and harmful. Indeed, giftedness is not a given or chosen privilege—it is a matter of neurodiversity and social justice. Gifted education, when done ethically and equitably, does not create hierarchies, but meets the learning, emotional, and special needs of a specific group of children who are often underserved, exploited, overlooked, misunderstood, and/or mistreated.

So, let’s break down some of the widespread misconceptions and biases regarding gifted individuals that are firmly held by an excessive number of members within society.

Myth #1: Highly specialised programs for the gifted are just for “smart” and “privileged” children

Besides how persistently people refer to this issue in the name of elitism and ableism, this is one of the most damaging misconceptions affecting gifted children. Giftedness should not be equated with high achievement, excellent grades, ambition, or competitiveness. In truth, giftedness pertains to unique ways of thinking, processing, and experiencing the world that differ from the majority of individuals.

• Many gifted children are not high achievers, and they become dropouts of diverse education systems (which typically lack policies to accommodate their needs…).
• Some exceptionally talented children face challenges in socio-emotional regulation, executive functioning, or managing anxiety and stress.
• Many gifted children are under-identified or under-supported because they come from dysfunctional families, low-income backgrounds, remote areas with no access to special programs, or are twice-exceptional (i.e., 2e: they are both gifted and have one or more types of disabilities).

Giftedness is too often defined through narrow, culturally biased lenses—usually standardized tests or teacher referrals—that don’t capture the full range of potential across diverse populations. However, equating giftedness with privilege, elitism, and ableism, erases the life and educational experiences of disadvantaged gifted students. Giftedness exists across all demographics. The issue is not that gifted education fosters elitism; rather, the challenge lies in the systemic inequities that prevent numerous gifted children from being acknowledged initially.

Myth #2: Gifted education is divisive in nature (anti-elitism)

Often, those who have difficulties in accepting the existence of giftedness, or in supporting specialised programs or diverse types of accomodations for gifted students overlook that the problem is not giftedness, helping people to develop their talents, or having special groups or activities for them. The issue is that some of the educational approaches to giftedness and talent, particularly in the systems of music education and the music industry, disproportionately serve children from well-doing families.

Another issue is that the ways to identify and include gifted children in educational systems, often lack transparency or research-based measures.

• Gifted education is not about saying that gifted children are “better” than others. It is about providing different learners with different needs.
• Supporting gifted learners doesn’t take away from other students—it strengthens the system for everyone. When we commit to identifying and supporting the full range of human potential, we create classrooms and communities where all children can flourish. Potential and achievement look different across people, and any expression of this diversity should be acknowledged and celebrated.
• Equity for all means equity for gifted children, too. For this reason, just as we accommodate students with disabilities through individualized education plans, gifted children would need access to acceleration or enrichment, more complex, abstract, or open-ended learning, as well as socio-emotional support for challenges like perfectionism, existential questioning, or asynchronous development.

Gifted programs are not and should not be about separating students for the sake of prestige, but about creating spaces for every child to grow, thrive, and belong. Gifted students need champions too—not because they are better, but because they are often forgotten in conversations that aim to be inclusive. Let’s make sure that inclusion truly means everyone—including the gifted.

Myth #3: Giftedness is the opposite of disability (anti-ableism)

Another detrimental misconception is the notion that gifted education promotes ableism—the belief that higher cognitive abilities render an individual more valuable. However, giftedness does not equate to perfection or superiority, as some claim.

• Numerous gifted students also exhibit neurodivergent traits. Indeed, giftedness represents a type of neurodiversity—a non-pathological difference in human cognition and processing. Gifted students may experience ADHD, autism, dyslexia, anxiety, or sensory processing differences (see text on 2e above).
• Identifying and assisting gifted learners is not merely about acknowledging the most talented individuals; rather, it involves understanding that gifted students frequently face similar risks of underachievement, emotional turmoil, or educational neglect as other students with special needs.

Providing support to gifted learners does not constitute ableism. Neglecting their needs does.

Conclusion: Equity means meeting all needs, including those of the gifted

Gifted education must not be utilized to accumulate resources or foster exclusion. However, the solution is not to abolish specialised programs for the gifted; rather, it is to address the existing issues, broaden access, and guarantee that all types of exceptional learning receive support. Inclusion signifies that every child obtains the necessary resources to learn, develop, and thrive—not that all children receive identical provisions. Gifted children do not seek to surpass others; they simply request not to be overlooked. This is not elitism; it is a matter of justice.

When discussing inclusion, equity, and social justice in education, our dialogues often (and justifiably) focus on historically marginalized groups: students with disabilities, foreign language learners, individuals from low-income backgrounds, etc. Nevertheless, there exists a group that is often excluded from the equity discussion: gifted children. If we genuinely aspire for equity in education, it is essential to incorporate the gifted into the conversation—not due to a belief that they deserve more, but because they equally deserve recognition.

Equity is not sameness. It’s not giving every student the exact same resources, assignments, or time. It’s about giving each student what they need to flourish and achieve their aspirations, based on their unique circumstances and potential. At its core, social justice in education means that every child has the right to learn and thrive. For gifted children, this means being seen—not just as smart, but as complex human beings with diverse identities, interests, and needs.

Social justice for gifted students requires that we:

• Acknowledge giftedness as a special need, not a privilege.
• Train educators to recognize giftedness across cultures, languages, and neurodiversities.
• Promote and develop policies that fund and support gifted education equitably.
• Listen to gifted children themselves, many of whom feel misunderstood, bored, or invisible in schools that aren’t designed for them.

If you still struggle to accept giftedness, celebrate exceptional music performances and musical learning by gifted children, appreciate their high abilities, and/or support specialist music programs for these learners, you might want to access the suggested readings below (which formed the basis for this blog post). Alternatively, you may wish to engage in profound reflection on certain testimonies presented in the (highly recommended) film “G Word“, and consider what they encapsulate in regards unequal societies and personal-political agendas that understand inclusion in rather narrow ways:

“When you’ve got a gifted child, only certain people want to hear that your child has achieved something. I can ring my mum and say, ‘I can’t believe she just learned fractions in 5 minutes’.” – Mother of a gifted daughter.

“It drives me nuts, I mean, you are telling all these people ‘we are the gifted ones, you are not. Deal with it, that is the truth’. Well, of course it’s gonna threaten the identity of a lot of people who hear that word.” – Dr. Scott Barry Hauffman.

About this blog post

This blog post has been written to mark the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children’s International Day of the Gifted, which is celebrated annually on August 10. The International Day of the Gifted is a global day of action to raise awareness around the world about gifted children and their learning and social/emotional needs. This post is part of the blog post series related to the author’s 5-years research project: “The Politics of Care in the Professional Education of Children Gifted for Music” (2022-2027), funded by the Research Council of Finland.

Read more about the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

Read more about the “Caring for Musically Gifted Children” project

Cite as: López-Íñiguez, G. (2025, August 10). “Recognizing and Supporting Musically Gifted Children: Social Distinction or Social Justice?” Uniarts Helsinki’s Emerging Perspectives on Instrumental Pedagogy blog. https://doi.org/xx.xxxx/zenodo.xxxxxxxx

Writer

Dr. Guadalupe López-Íñiguez, University Researcher, Academy Research Fellow, and Docent at Uniarts Helsinki.

References

• Gagné, F. (2021). Differentiating giftedness from talent. The DMGT perspective on talent development. Routledge.
• López-Íñiguez, G., & McPherson, G. E. (2025). Issues and approaches to gifted education in specialist music programs globally: Insights from institutional leaders. Online First Publication. Gifted Education International.
• López-Íñiguez, G., & McPherson, G. E. (2023). Caring approaches to young, gifted music learners’ education: a PRISMA scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1167292.
• López-Íñiguez, G., & Westerlund, H. (2023). The politics of care in the education of children gifted for music: A systems view. In K. S. Hendricks (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of care in music education (pp. 115–129). Oxford University Press.
• Smith, C. (Ed.). (2006). Including the gifted and talented: Making inclusion work for more gifted and able learners (1st ed.). Routledge.
• Tirri, K., & Laine, S. (2017). Ethical challenges in inclusive education: The case of gifted students. In A Gajewski (Ed.), Ethics, equity, and inclusive education. International perspectives on inclusive education (pp. 239–257) (Vol. 9). Emerald Group Publishing.
• Tirri, K. (2010). Combining excellence and ethics: Implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 33(1), 59–64.