Traditional notions of intelligence are crippling the field of Gifted Education and often, whether explicitly or implicitly, perpetuate inequity and disproportionality throughout the field in both theory and practice (Cross, 2021; Owens et al., 2018). A particular reason for this issue takes root in narrow, monocultural conceptualizations of intelligence, “casting it in singular rather than interactive disciplines and ways of representation” (Eisner as interviewed by Buescher, 1986, p. 7). As we seek to reform Gifted Education, “we will need to release ourselves from the grips of traditional stereotypes about what schools should be, how teaching is to proceed, what appropriate curriculum content entails, and how evaluation should occur” (Eisner, p. 89). Drawing from Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (TPD), particularly notions pertaining to the five Overexcitabilities and Development Potential, as well as Eisner’s ideas concerning knowledge acquisition through diverse forms of representation and ways of knowing, I present various ideas and implications for the field of Gifted Education. These ideas and implications inform many K-12 teaching and learning practices as well. @font-face {font-family:“Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:“”; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:“Calibri”,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:“Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:“Calibri”,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:“Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}
Monocultural notions of intelligence are crippling the field of gifted education and often, whether explicitly or implicitly, perpetuate inequity and disproportionality in both theory and practice, especially regarding how children are identified as gifted (Cross, 2021; Owens et al., 2018). This paper briefly examines the history of the conceptualization of giftedness and posits that gifted programming identification procedures represent a unique and dangerous hidden curriculum. Drawing from theory on critical hope and positionality, two tables are presented; one to examine hokey versus critical gifted programing practices, and one to examine dehumanizing versus humanizing gifted identification procedures. These tables are intended to generate discussion on what happens when new ways of conceptualizing giftedness meet old ways of understanding, informing, and ordering the field of gifted education. @font-face {font-family:“Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:“”; margin:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:“Times New Roman”,serif; mso-fareast-font-family:“Times New Roman”;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:“Calibri”,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:“Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}