Cons Of Labeling Children

Although in many cases teachers have the students’ best interest at heart and hope to benefit them from a referral for an evaluation, inappropriate labeling can bring serious consequences for pupils. As noted on Truth in labeling: disproportionality in special education (2007), once admitted into the special needs program, students tend to remain in special education classes, they are more likely to encounter less rigorous curriculum and lower expectations, they often face social stigma, and have less contact with academically able peers.

As a teacher it is important to know who you are as a learner because it allows for you to help improve your educational experience and to help increase your knowledge. It also allows for you to open your mind to remembering that every person and every student in unique and how they learn will be completely different from one another. This means that in one class you could have thirty unique learners and it will be your job to make sure that you make each child’s educational experience meaningful to them.

Special education teachers no longer may identify themselves as teachers of just a specific category of students. Rather, they must identify themselves as teachers of all students and be willing to provide whatever support is needed to meet the varied needs of students. Likewise, students should not be identified as self-contained or resource, but as students needing specialized instruction and supports for specific skills/subject areas for specific amounts of time in either a special education setting or a general education setting.

Some labels are positive and pleasant, such as ‘gifted’, others can have a negative and belittling influence, such as ‘learning disabilities’, while some can be very damaging,

Disproportionate identification of minority students in special education is a major concern in schools today. This paper describes the issues in the assessment process with minority students and how we have arrived at a situation where minorities are being misdiagnosed into special education programs. Additionally, several legal cases are mentioned which show numerous actions and rulings that have tried to correct the disproportionate identification in special education. Some of the legal cases discussed include Larry P. v Riles, Diana v. State Board of Education, and Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School, which all significantly impacted special education today. Additionally, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act has enforced

We must not label children due to their disability. It is important we look at their individual need first without focusing on their impairment. We should be realistic about their expectations and modify the curriculum to suit, give them extra support or their own SEN, depending on needs but also encouraging independence as much as possible.

In another article, “The Functionalist View of Special Education and Disability: Deconstructing the Conventional Knowledge Tradition,” it discusses how Special Education is problematic, due to professional models, practices, and tools that are created from functionalists assumptions and theories, which have been proven to be ineffective, and sometimes harmful (Skrtic, 2005). This article is a great framework for how society has created the stigma of individuals with health, and physical needs, to the term, disabilities. For example, Skrtic explains how, Special Education was founded in part, by students who were removed, and contained due to inefficient organizations and defective students (Skrtic, 2005). Those students who didn’t fit into societies norms, were considered to be deviant, and then labeled as having a disability, or worse, labeled

Diversity challenges can be affected by misunderstandings in difference of gender, race, class, geographic location, language, religion, family structures, abilities, and family/personal history (Dray & Wisneski, 2011, p Teachers should also understand the deeper meaning of behavior in daily classroom interactions of students who may or may not be labeled with a disability but who present behavior challenges in the classroom (Dray & Wisneski, 2011, p. 31).

An exceptional student is any student who has abilities or issues so significant that they require a special type of education and/or services to reach their full potential. The use of labeling is extremely controversial. Some disadvantages to labeling exceptional students are that these labels are mistaken for explanations, they emphasize the most negative aspect of the student, these labels may be viewed as permanent, self- fulfilling prophecies and cause stigmas. Other drawbacks of labeling are that teachers may have preconceived ideas of the child’s capabilities based on the label and may not teach the child to their fullest capability. This can create ineffective schooling. Another drawback is the teacher may stereotype students and forget

In the start, the integration was not adequate to help the child but now with more knowledge of disabilities, schools have developed successful ways to identify students in need of services. As the existence of Special Education begun, a label has been put on students based on the disability classification but regardless of what the label is, there are advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages would be the self-esteem issue, where labeling a child could make them fall victim to the self-fulfilling prophecy and lower their self-esteem. On the other hand, being labeled has its advantages to some extent, which is placement. There needs to be criteria for determining whether a person is in need of a special education program or not, the extent of the need and how to the service tailor accordingly. Therefore, labeling can serve to make sure the student is receiving the proper

I have personally used labels when referring to students with a disability, and know that is something we, as educators, should be at the forefront to dissipate. Many of us have used phrases like “the girl with Down syndrome,” or “the autistic boy,” but when we do that we are labeling that person has something wrong with them, or that they are largely different that other people. Jennie Fenton likened that thinking process as asking someone “When did you find out you were bald? What is is like being bald? Do you have problems getting a job? Do you live at your parents’ house, or do you live in a home for the bald?” (TEDTalks, 2014). This thought process resonated greatly within me. I would never think to ask these questions or even feel the need to ask them to a person whom has less hair than someone else. So, why would I think or treat someone with a disability differently, or even believe they should be segregated or excluded from every aspect life has to

One of the difficulties in identifying the needs of low-income students is the profound cultural barriers which exist that prevent their strengths and deficits from being identified. Children from low-income homes frequently have poorer vocabularies and a weaker basis of the type of knowledge that is frequently considered 'intelligence' on most forms of assessment. A low-income child's IQ may be high, even though he lacks a framework of accepted middle-class knowledge. "In January 2003, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on the seeming overrepresentation of minorities in special education and underrepresentation of those students in gifted education. The NRC reported that, nationwide, 7.47 percent of all white students and 9.9 percent of Asian students are placed in gifted programs. Meanwhile, 3.04 percent of African-American students, 3.57 percent of Hispanic students, and 4.86 percent of American Indian students are classified as gifted" (GT-minority identification, 2003, ERIC Clearinghouse). The discrepancy, the NAS believed, could not be solely explained by talent alone but was at least partially rooted in the methods of identifying students labeled as gifted. Biases in standardized and other tests identifying student strengths, combined with prejudices, however unintentional, amongst educators and administrators lead to under-identification of the gifted

A further challenge within educational contexts lies in the frequent conflation of learner identities grounded in categories of race, ethnicity, dis/ability, social class and gender. Learner identities refer specifically to the conceptualizations children have of themselves as learners, but as with social identities, these are relational and pupils construct themselves and are constructed by others as particular types of learners in relation to both other pupils and teachers. (Reay 279)

In the article, Are Labels Good for Kids, Gwen Senokossoff told a story about how her son Mathew was diagnosed with ADHD and CBD after their family moved to a new town. Gwen talked about how, in the beginning, before Mathew was diagnosed with his disabilities, how difficult it was for everyone to deal with and make sense of his behaviors. After she took Mathew to be evaluated by a physician and was diagnosed with his disabilities, she claimed that it was so much easier to get him help. Once they knew what Mathew was dealing with by labeling him they were able to get him medications that calmed him and helped with his mood. They were also able to get him therapy and create behavior plans that included setting goals to help him along the way. In the long run, being labeled really helped get Mathew’s conditions under control and made a positive difference in his life.

Your post mentioned that targeting at-risk children for early intervention can run the risk of negatively labeling children in the community, but providing them with support and effective programs can help to prevent at-risk children from developing or displaying problem behaviors. The behaviors can be negative, harmful, and aggressive. I agree that targeting at-risk children can negatively label the children by bringing attention to themselves for needing support to cope with problems that may be present in their homes and the community. Interestingly, studies show that the unwanted or aggressive behaviors of arguing, disobedience, and not sharing, that appear in early childhood, can turn into fighting, lying, and stealing in the primary school