For starters, gifted is an arbitrary label. Depending on the source, it lumps together the top 2.5% of all students as measured by a common set of intelligence or IQ exams. Not only is this an arbitrary number, there are many types of intelligence most IQ exams do not consider (see the work of Howard Gardner on multiple intelligences, and Daniel Goleman's excellent book, Emotional Intelliigence). The next Picasso will not be identified by the Stanford-Binet exam, nor will the next Nuryev or even Michael Jordan.

Next, it creates a polarity between The Gifted and The Non-Gifted where there is no natural distinction, only a continuum of intelligence. Or rather, a set of continnua of intelligence, since there are so many to consider. This point has been made in a number of other places, but the top of that top 2.5% are as different from those at the bottom, as those at the bottom are to those far below them. In other words, the whole polarity quickly breaks down and loses its usefulness.

The term gifted increases the child's sense of isolation.

Children labeled gifted are a population already prone to feeling different and isolated from their peers. A very sensitive and intelligent child may be viewing the world from a far more adult perspective, which creates a distance between her and her peers. A good amount of our music, literature and film is based on the perspective of intelligent outsiders. Though it may serve as good fodder for art, the term does the child no favors in the loneliness department.

The term carries an implicit value judgment, that the non-Gifted are less worthy.

Let's speak plainly. The Gifted are a club, and either you're in or you're out. And those that are out are--you don't want to say it aloud, but we all know what we're really talking about here--inferior. I hereby open myself to charges of political correctness.

Not so. The politically correct are those too afraid ("squeamish", according to the accusers) to admit that there are differences between children, that some children are smarter than others. These are the levelers, the thinkers of socialist bent who favor equality above all else. Whereas my point is that the term is useless because each child is so radically different.

The downside of this particular club is that it serves to increase envy in those not falling into the category, children already prone to feeling envious of those that do. Not surprisingly, it can create a sense of superiority in those it's applied to, and enhance a sense of entitlement that creates a complex of emotional issues down the line. I've seen all of this in my own experience. Could it be this all is by design?

I believe that the term is a misguided attempt to bolster the egos of the sensitive young, to gird them against a harsh, uncaring world. Remember we're talking about the kids who feel different, unaccepted, isolated because their perspectives are so different, their ideas, creativity, ways of thinkings don't fit into the norm. Aren't these kids made to feel inferior by society in a large number of ways?

So to compensate, we give them this feather in their cap, a one-up, something to finally at last to feel valued for, superior? Perhaps the people promoting the term have felt this inferiority themselves, perhaps they still feel it, and feel aggrandized knowing that they belong to the select group, the Gifted. That their children are members of this very same group?

The problem is this is a very poor path to self-esteem. The flaw is not in the cretin horde, or the teachers, but with the other gifted students themselves. Very soon the gifted begin comparing themselves to the very gifted, and the extremely gifted, the exceptionally gifted, and the preposterously gifted (you have to love the gifted literature). There is always someone smarter than you; I can safely say this because no one is ever objective about these sorts of comparisons. Your mind will always find someone better at you in some way at something.

Can we do any better?

Gifted is an antiquated term; it carries a 1970's ring to it. I visualize my first-edition copy of Free to be You and Me when I see it. I see dirty-haired women wearing macrame trying to improve the lot of the sensitive and intelligent youth, and despite all my misgivings, I really have to thank them for it.

The funny thing is, that segregation of the gifted from their peers actually works. It did in my case, for a very simple reason. There were no bullies in my gifted school. Or there were, but they were of much softer variety than in grade school. The kind that merely insulted you wittily, instead of punching or tripping you.

The gifted school or program is a place that provides protection for highly intelligent, sensitive and non-violent kids, and gives them space to develop. Perhaps a more accurate term than "The Gifted" would be "The Unassertive" or "The Meek." The scientific case for dividing children based on assertiveness is one of the strongest arguments for segregating boys and girls in math classes. I think I would have been ecstatic as a boy going to school with only girls and the last few bespectacled males to be picked to play football.

But highly intelligent kids are not the only kids that need protection. Kids with physical or learning disabilities, syndromes, etc. need similar protection and attention. Perhaps an alternative division in our public schools would be between "The Violent" and "The Non-Violent". You could envision separate schools, one with gardens and places to have picnics for recess, and a security-guard patrolled gridiron and set of basketball courts at the other.

My point here is not to seriously question the practice of giving individualized attention to intelligent students. I'll certainly take advantage of such programs for my children if they exist. But if you begin to look very closely at "everyone else", not just at the bottom but in the middle and upper-middle, there are more differences than similarities, and almost every child could benefit from some kind of individualized attention.

Some will say that we don't have the resources to provide that now. Each individual's parents, however, are equipped to buttress and supplement their children's education to round and and fill their unique needs, where schools will and must fail. And since I work in the technology industry, I've got to remain optimistic that technology will somehow play a role in filling the void in the near future, providing individualized education where teachers cannot.