These are just some of the labels applied to students by teachers—often as early as preschool. These designations might crop up in a conversation between colleagues. Or at a parent conference. Or in the classroom.
Regardless of where and how these labels are applied, most children will, from an early age, develop a sense of how their teachers see them, experts say. And those labels are not easy to undo.
“I think kids leave kindergarten not only with an idea and an expectation of school, but an expectation of themselves in school, like, ‘I’m gonna like this. I’m gonna be good at this—or not,’” said Susan Engel, a developmental psychologist who directs the teaching program at Williams College in Massachusetts and observed nearly 30 classrooms as research for her 2026 book, American Kindergarten: Dispatches from the First Year of School. “It’s the rare child who can break out of that idea later on.”
As Engel observes, labels can play a large and lasting role in how students see themselves. That’s true even long after a particular label no longer fits. A student who was once described as a struggling reader can become someone who reads fluently and with deep comprehension, for instance.
But the negative feelings fed by that original label can linger, say experts, who offer alternative ways of expressing and supporting students’ learning trajectories.
When labels linger in students’ minds
Jacqueline Woodson, an award-winning author of books for children and adolescents, knows this all too well. She has said she likely would have been labeled a struggling reader if she were in school today, because of the slow and deliberate way she read.
“I was constantly being compared to my sister who excelled, and it made me feel insecure. What gets translated is ‘you are not as good,’ and that gets translated into our whole bodies. That’s where the danger lies,” Woodson told Education Week in 2018.
It’s easy to see why labeling a student with negative identifiers, like “slow” or “disruptive,” is harmful. But even so-called “good” labels come with their own set of potential pitfalls, experts say.
For instance, being identified as “gifted” can induce heavy feelings of responsibility. “The label creates pressure—even when you try to protect them [students] from it,” wrote Danielle Sullivan, past president of the North Carolina Association for the Gifted & Talented, on the organization’s website. “They fear disappointing the expectations tied to the label.”
That fear can also create self-inflicted pressure to stay “on top” so as not to disappoint expectations—real or perceived—of teachers, parents, or even peers. That same pressure may prevent a student from taking academic risks due to the fear of failing and, subsequently, tarnishing their reputation.
Despite the downfalls inherent in labeling students or their work as “good” or “bad,” teachers tend to use praise and criticism as their two primary tools when giving feedback, Engel said.
Rather than talking in broad “evaluative” terms, Engel suggests that teachers point out specific aspects of students’ work.
“It’s more about helping students think about how they’re thinking, about their process,” she said.
For instance, if a young student draws a picture, rather than saying “that’s a beautiful drawing you made,” a teacher should make the feedback specific, such as, “I noticed you really love purple. Oh, tell me about that creature over there,” Engel suggested.
New research suggests that teachers’ biases may prevent them from providing constructive feedback that focuses on specific strategies to improve academic performance rather than pointing to supposed student deficiencies, like “not trying hard enough.” The forthcoming study found that girls and students of color were more likely to receive negative feedback related to their math ability and effort—which researchers say can lead to students feeling less capable of improving their math skills.
Reframing how teachers talk about students
There are times when teachers must evaluate students. But there are ways to do it that avoid labeling students and, instead, focus on development of specific skills.
Emily Bartz, a Baltimore-based learning specialist and independent education consultant, trains K-12 teachers to examine student achievement through the lens of executive function skills, rather than considering it part of a student’s identity.
“You really don’t know what to do with a kid who, in your mind, is lazy,” Bartz said.
But a student who appears lazy or unmotivated may actually be struggling with task initiation, a key executive function skill that allows one to shift from thinking about a task to actually beginning it, she said.
In addition to giving teachers the vocabulary to understand the relationship between students’ skill levels and behavior, Bartz also offers strategies that support skill growth.
Heather Tibbetts, the lower school principal at Principia, an independent co-ed school in St. Louis, Mo., calls that re-framing a “light-bulb moment.”
Her K-5 teaching staff received this training from Bartz prior to teacher-parent conferences this fall. Tibbetts believes that explaining students’ progress in terms of their skills—rather than character or personality traits—will result in more meaningful meetings with parents.
Rather than defaulting to labeling kids, Tibbetts said “it’s much more productive to share with parents which executive function skills their children are lacking, or which skill isn’t developed as much, especially knowing how we can teach that executive functioning skill to help students be more successful in school.”