What is one trait that is strictly human in nature? If you are a Bible reader, you see evidence of it in the genesis of human life. The evidence is in our name. As a species, we have the useful and troublesome habit—or perhaps the urge—to categorize or label whatever we experience. This tendency shows up everywhere, but it is especially pronounced in education. In this field, we label everything: students, classrooms, campuses, and even learning styles. We create categories for different levels of ability, funding sources, and teaching methods. We dissect challenges and solutions, affixing names to them as if naming alone brings clarity or control. But what are the consequences of this labeling? While labels help us define and communicate about complex issues, they also carry the weight of expectations, assumptions, and unintended limitations.

Take, for instance, the term "at-risk student." What does it really mean? At face value, it identifies learners who may face barriers to academic success—such as poverty, instability at home, or lack of resources. However, the label itself can inadvertently become a boundary. It can shape how students are perceived by educators, peers, and even themselves. The risk becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not because of the student’s potential, but because of how the system responds to the label. Similarly, we assign names to classrooms: “inclusive,” “special education,” “advanced placement.” These labels are meant to organize and ensure support for diverse learners, but they also subtly reinforce hierarchies and separations. Students learn early on where they are placed in these structures, and that knowledge often shapes their confidence and aspirations.

Even campuses are categorized: “Title I,” “low-performing,” “high-achieving.” These labels inform policy and funding decisions, but they can also stigmatize entire school communities. A Title I campus may carry the weight of external judgment, even as its educators and students work tirelessly to overcome systemic challenges. The act of categorization is neither inherently good nor bad—it is a tool. But like any tool, its impact depends on how it is wielded. Labels in education should be used with care, mindfulness, and a commitment to fluidity. A student labeled as "at-risk" in one moment may become a success story in the next. A school labeled as “low-performing” can, with the right support, transform into a model of innovation and excellence.

So, who is really at risk in education? Perhaps it’s all of us, if we allow these labels to limit rather than expand our understanding. As educators, parents, and community members, we must challenge ourselves to see beyond the labels. We must recognize the potential in every learner, every teacher, and every school—regardless of the names we assign. Education should not be about defining fixed categories but about opening doors to possibility. Labels may help us understand where we are, but they should never determine how far we can go.