Within disciplines, certain theoretical, ontological, and heuristic frameworks evolve toward axiomatic status over time. This evolution can limit disciplinary growth. Interdisciplinary theorizing can introduce trouble into such frameworks and add the tension necessary for the creation of new knowledge. This theoretical essay provides educators with new ways of thinking about teaching disadvantaged gifted youth. Differentiation, an educational philosophy, is reconceptualized as a form of critical pedagogy termed critical differentiation. The concept of the twice oppressed is presented. This concept suggests that it is possible for children to be oppressed based on social category as well as gifted classification. As in the case of the twice exceptional child who may struggle in classrooms with both dyslexia and giftedness, the twice oppressed child may struggle with both poverty and giftedness. Critical differentiation, or a merger of critical pedagogy and differentiation, may become a step toward resolving this conundrum. The concept of critical differentiation is explicated in this essay, along with sample lesson ideas and suggestions for framing research endeavors.
BoalA. (1998). Legislative theatre: Using performance to make politics. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
BorlandJ. H. (1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3&4), 6-20.
3.
BorlandJ. H.SchnurR.WrightL. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 13-32.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (NiceR., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BourdieuP. (2007). The forms of capital. In SadovnikA. R. (Ed.), Sociology of education: A critical reader (pp. 83-95). New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
CheneyI.EllisC. (Producers), & WoolfA. (Director). (2007). King Corn [Motion picture]. USA: New Video Group.
10.
ColemanL. J.SandersM. D.CrossT. L. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 105-111.
11.
CoxC. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
12.
DikaS. L.SinghK. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31-60.
13.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.MilnerH. R. (2004). Underachievement among gifted African American students: Cultural, social, and psychological considerations. In BootheD.StanleyJ. (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 15-31). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
14.
FreireP. (2003). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970)
15.
FreireP. (2007). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1974)
16.
HorvatE. M.WeiningerE. B.LareauA. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 319-351.
17.
JohnsenS. K.KendrickJ. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching gifted students with disabilities. Waco, TX: Prufrock.
18.
KozolJ. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
19.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.
20.
LareauA. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
21.
LareauA. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
LightfootS. L. (1978). Worlds apart. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23.
LinN. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
LoewenJ. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York, NY: Touchstone.
25.
MargolinL. (1993). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. Social Problems, 40, 510-532.
26.
MargolinL. (1994a). Goodness personified. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
27.
MargolinL. (1994b). A pedagogy of privilege. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 164-180.
28.
McLarenP. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In DarderA.BaltodanoM.TorresR. (Eds.), Critical pedagogy reader (pp. 69-96). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
MendaglioS. (2003). Qualitative case study in gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 163-183.
30.
MoonS. M. (1991). Case study research in gifted education. In BuchananN.FeldhusenJ. (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education (pp. 157-178). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
OgbuJ. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21(8), 5-14.
32.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2003). Do we change gifted children to fit gifted programs, or do we change gifted programs to fit gifted children?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 4, 304-313.
33.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.GrantB.SeibertC. (1994). Social support systems and the disadvantaged gifted: A framework for developing programs and services. Roeper Review, 17, 20-25.
34.
ParrishM. (2004). Urban poverty and homelessness as hidden demographic variables relevant to academic achievement. In BootheD.StanleyJ. C. (Eds.), In the eyes of the beholder: Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 203-211). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
35.
PendarvisE.HowleyA. (1996). Playing fair: The possibilities of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 215-233.
36.
PernaL. W.TitusM. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 485-418.
37.
PetersonJ. S.MargolinL. (1997). Naming gifted children: An example of unintended “reproduction.”Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 82-100.
38.
SandersM. (2004). Urban odyssey: Theatre of the oppressed and talented minority youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 218-241.
SchrawG.OlafsonL. (2003). Teachers’ epistemological world views and educational practices. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 3, 178-235.
41.
Speirs NeumeisterK. L.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-499.
42.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
43.
TomlinsonC. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44.
YilmazK. (2008). Social studies teachers’ conceptions of history: Calling on historiography. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 158-176.
