Air on the ‘G’ String: Hoagies’ Bloghop, May 2014


medium_17873944As I see it, there are three sets of issues with the ‘G’ word:

  • Terminological – the term carries with it associations that make some advocates uncomfortable and predispose others to resist such advocacy.
  • Definitional – there are many different ways to define the term and the subset of the population to which it can be applied; there is much disagreement about this, even amongst advocates.
  • Labelling – the application of the term to individuals can have unintended negative consequences, for them and for others.


Terminological issues

We need shared terminology to communicate effectively about this topic. A huge range of alternatives is available: able, more able, highly able, most able, talented, asynchronous, high potential, high learning potential… and so on.

These terms – the ‘g’ word in particular – are often qualified by an adjective – profoundly, highly, exceptionally – which adds a further layer of complexity. Then there is the vexed question of dual and multiple exceptionality…

Those of us who are native English speakers conveniently forget that there are also numerous terms available in other languages: surdoue, hochbegabung, hochbegaabte, altas capacidades, superdotados, altas habilidades, evnerik and many, many more!

Each of these terms has its own good and bad points, its positive and negative associations.

The ‘g’ word has a long history, is part of the lingua franca and is still most widely used. But its long ascendancy has garnered a richer mix of associations than some of the alternatives.

The negative associations can be unhelpful to those seeking to persuade others to respond positively and effectively to the needs of these children and young people. Some advocates feel uncomfortable using the term and this hampers effective communication, both within the community and outside it.

Some react negatively to its exclusive, elitist connotations; on the other hand, it can be used in a positive way to boost confidence and self-esteem.

But, ultimately, the term we use is less significant than the way in which we define it. There may be some vague generic distaste for the ‘g’ word, but logic should dictate that most reactions will depend predominantly on the meaning that is applied to the term.


Definitional issues

My very first blog post drew attention to the very different ways in which this topic is approached around the world. I identified three key polarities:

  • Nature versus nurture – the perceived predominance of inherited disposition over effort and practice, or vice versa.
  • Excellence versus equity – whether priority is given to raising absolute standards and meritocracy or narrowing excellence gaps and social mobility.
  • Special needs versus personalisation – whether the condition or state defined by the term should be addressed educationally as a special need, or through mainstream provision via differentiation and tailored support.

These definitional positions may be associated with the perceived pitch or incidence of the ‘g’ condition. When those at the extreme of the distribution are under discussion, or the condition is perceived to be extremely rare, a nature-excellence-special needs perspective is more likely to predominate. A broader conceptualisation pushes one towards the nurture-equity-personalisation nexus.

Those with a more inclusive notion of ‘g’-ness – who do not distinguish between ‘bright’ and ‘g’, include all high attainers amongst the latter and are focused on the belief that ‘g’-ness is evenly distributed in the population by gender, ethnic and socio-economic background – are much more likely to hold the latter perspective, or at least tend towards it.

There are also differences according to whether the focus is the condition itself – ‘g’-ness – or schooling for the learners to whom the term is applied – ‘g’ education. In the first case, nature, excellence and special needs tend to predominate; in the second the reverse is true. This can compromise interaction between parents and educators.

In my experience, if the ‘g’ word is qualified by a careful definition that takes account of these three polarities, a mature discussion about needs and how best to meet them is much more likely to occur.

In the absence of a shared definition, the associations of the term will likely predominate unchecked. Effective communication will be impossible; common ground cannot be established; the needs that the advocate is pressing will remain unfulfilled. That is in no-one’s best interests, least of all those who are ‘g’.


Labelling Issues 

When the ‘g’ word is applied to an individual, it is likely to influence how that individual perceives himself and how others perceive him.

Labelling is normally regarded as negative, because it implies a fixed and immutable state and may subject the bearers of the label to impossibly high expectations, whether of behaviour or achievement, that they cannot always fulfil.

Those who do not carry the label may see themselves as second class citizens, become demotivated and much less likely to succeed.

But, as noted above, it is also possible to use the ‘g’ label to confer much-needed status and attention on those who do not possess the former or receive enough of the latter. This can boost confidence and self-esteem, making the owners of the label more likely to conform to the expectations that it carries.

This is particularly valuable for those who strive to promote equity and narrow excellence gaps between those from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds.

Moreover, much depends on whether the label is permanently applied or confers a temporary status.

I recently published a Twitter conversation explaining how the ‘g’ label can be used as a marker to identify those learners who for the time being need additional learning support to maximise their already high achievement.

This approach reflects the fact that children and young people do not develop through a consistent linear process, but experience periods of rapid development and comparative stasis.

The timing and duration of these periods will vary so, at any one time in any group of such individuals, some will be progressing rapidly and others will not. Over the longer term some will prove precocious; others late developers.

This is not to deny that a few learners at the extreme of the distribution will retain the marker throughout their education, because they are consistently far ahead of their peers and so need permanent additional support to maximise their achievement.

But, critically, the label is earned through evidence of high achievement rather than through a test of intelligence or cognitive ability that might have been administered once only and in the distant past. ‘G’-ness depends on educational success. It also forces educators to address underachievement at the top of the attainment spectrum.

If a label is more typically used as a temporary marker it must be deployed sensitively, in a way that is clearly understood by learners and their parents. They must appreciate that the removal of the marker is not a punishment or downgrading that leads to loss of self-esteem.

Because the ‘g’ label typically denotes a non-permanent state that defines need rather than expectation, most if not all of the negative connotations can be avoided.

Nevertheless, this may be anathema to those with a nature-excellence-special needs perspective!



I have avoided using the ‘g’ word within this post, partly to see if it could be done and partly out of respect for those of you who dislike it so much.

But I have also advanced some provocative arguments using terminology that some of you will find equally disturbing. That is deliberate and designed to make you think!

The ‘g’ word has substantial downside, but this can be minimised through careful definition and the application of the label as a non-permanent marker.

It may be that the residual negative associations are such that an alternative is still preferable. The question then arises whether there is a better term with the same currency and none of the negative connotations.

As noted above there are many contenders – not all of them part of the English language – but none stands head-and-shoulders above its competitors.

And of course it is simply impossible to ban a word. Indeed, any attempt to do so would provoke many of us – me included – to use the ‘g’ word even more frequently and with much stronger conviction.



Hoagies bloghop


This blog is part of the Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page inaugural Blog Hop on The “G” Word (“Gifted”).  To read more blogs in this hop, visit this Blog Hop at




May 2014






photo credit: <a href=””>neurollero</a&gt; via <a href=””>photopin</a&gt; <a href=””>cc</a&gt;


7 thoughts on “Air on the ‘G’ String: Hoagies’ Bloghop, May 2014

  1. Thank you for your discussion on the g-word, Tim. It is interesting to follow the discussion, because it seems it occurs in Norway as well. (i.e. What do we call them? What does the “label” imply? Aren´t all children “g”? etc. etc.). By discussing the issues, we bring clarity to our own minds. Wether or not this will bring clarity to the “non-g-interested” remains to be seen.
    Again: thank you. 🙂

  2. Thanks so much Kari. I really wanted to make the point that this isn’t just an issue for the English language. I guess the big issue everywhere is how to secure rational engagement and discussion – and so break through people’s innate prejudices.

    Best wishes


  3. Given that you are being intentionally provocative, I have no idea what you actually believe.

    That makes debating some of the more incredible statements in here seem like a complete and utter waste of time to me. So, I will touch on *one* statement:

    “the removal of the marker is not a punishment or downgrading”


    There is no interpretation that has it other than a downgrading. “I was gifted and now I am not.” “My performance was gifted, but now it is not.” “I was seen as gifted and am not now.”

    It is a downgrading.

    Further, while it may not be intended as a punishment, it has that effect if the gifted program has benefits to the student in question.

    “Something made a positive difference in my life. Now, as a result of something I have done (or not done), it has been taken away.”

    Find me a kid who does not recognize that as a punishment and I will show you a kid who is comatose.

  4. You sound angry Josh!

    I guess I tend more towards the nurture-equity-personalisation poles, but not at the extreme. For more about what I believe try ‘The Gifted Phoenix Manifesto’ elsewhere on this blog.

    On your specific point, if educators take the time to explain carefully to parents and learners how they are using the marker and why, there is no reason why it should be regarded as detrimental and cause loss of esteem. All it means when the marker goes is that the learner has no need of special additional personalised support for the time being. He may or may not need such additional support in the future but, for the nonce, he should be OK with normal, effective classroom differentiation (subject of course to careful ongoing assessment).

    I think you may have a pre-conceived view of the appropriate model and format of educational support for gifted learners. The ‘gifted programme’ in this context is not separate pull-out provision that you belong to and then get removed from, but a personalised learning pathway that is anchored in the learner’s normal learning setting. The additional tailored support might or might not be of the pull-out variety, depending on the specific needs of the learner. There are many more alternatives as you know. It is integrated into the learner’s educational experience rather than being a ‘bolt-on’ extra.

    It ought to be well within the compass of a gifted learner to understand this framing – and to appreciate the benefits of not carrying a potentially burdensome label throughout their educational experience and potentially on into adulthood.

    Best wishes


  5. “I think you may have a pre-conceived view of the appropriate model and format of educational support for gifted learners.”

    That might be why you think I sound angry.

    The way I described this elsewhere is that you have built, in your intentionally provocative way, a set of embedded false dichotomies – a sort of logical Matryoshka doll. Things are set opposite each other in divisive ways that rarely are in pure opposition and which don’t fall onto axes in the ways described.

    I do understand your notion of individualized services being provided rather than pull-out. I find more than a little irony in your conviction that “if educators take the time to explain carefully to parents and learners how they are using the marker and why, there is no reason why it should be regarded as detrimental and cause loss of esteem,” when the major reason we have confusion about gifted terminology at all is failure of communication coupled with preset assumptions that cannot be allayed with virtually any amount of careful explanations!

    Indeed, your description of what ought to occur sounds far more like “a pre-conceived view of the appropriate model and format of educational support for gifted learners” than anything I have said. I’ve read the Manifesto on multiple occasions. I suppose I can read it again.

    I have preconceived notions about attitudes toward gifted children and adults; about experiments proposed to be done on a national or international basis when none of the smaller explorations of the proposed type have yielded significant results of the promised type; about broad assertions of how kids work that do not rest on research; and a bunch of other such things.

    Lastly… “It ought to be well within the compass of a gifted learner to understand this framing.”

    I am really quite unsure how you can insist to me in *one* breath that because “children and young people do not develop through a consistent linear process,” therefore they do not need services, but in the next breath tell me that you are going to rely on their giftedness to ensure their understanding that they are not being punished!

    If they are gifted enough to understand why the services are being withdrawn, they are gifted enough to continue receiving the services.

    Granting the ebb and flow of growth – the “comparative stasis” – gifted children do not stop being gifted during that relative downtime. Even if they did, there is no way to time when (your definition of) giftedness turns back on again and the need is there. We don’t have a meter on their foreheads!

  6. There are some non-sequiturs in your argument over the second order points above, but I don’t want to wave a red rag in front of a raging bull. We must agree to disagree on most of this, though there are two substantive points that justify a response.

    First, I make no great claims regarding the model I use to understand where different people stand on gifted issues, other than to say that I have found it helpful in thinking about them and in discussing them with others. It doesn’t have the scientific precision of the terminology you use to describe it, but it does provide a decent enough map of the territory. I wrote it four years ago now and periodically I revisit it to consider how it might be improved. I haven’t yet found the right way to make it better. I should add that any divisiveness lies in your interpretation of the model, not in mine. I think I said in my original piece that it is quite likely that many people will have ‘spiky profiles’ rather than inclining exclusively to one side or the other.

    Second, on the labelling point I just want to reiterate what I said in the piece – that some learners at the extreme of the distribution may well need additional personalised support throughout their education. But many others will not. It is not that that they are gifted one moment and not the next, but that there will be significant periods when they do not need the additional tailored support. This of course is predicated on a rather catholic interpretation of what constitutes a gifted learner.

    I am really very grateful that you’ve read my Manifesto several times, especially given that so much of my writing must exasperate you. But you really don’t need to bother if it, too, makes you angry. Life’s too short!

    Best wishes


  7. I wasn’t angry before – you thought I was angry.

    And I am not angry now – but it would be nice if you stopped insisting you know my mood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s