Labelling in Special Education - Report Example

Labelling in Special Education Institution Student’s Name Labelling in Special Education 1.0 Introduction The study aims to analyse the importance of labelling. It presents an argument on the efficaciousness of labelling on ensuring a positive learning experience for people in need of special education and/ or people with disability. The study also links labelled people with special disability to the interactionist theory. It aims at proving that labelling process is effective in inclusive and special education if viewed through the interactionist theory. 2.0 Argument about Labelling The main role of the section is to determine the efficaciousness of labelling in ensuring a positive learning experience for people with special education needs or people living with disabilities. The section provides evidence on efficacy of labelling and its link to stigma. It also uses the interactionist theory as a way of understanding the defiance or stigma concept and justifies why the theory is critical for the study of labelling. 2.1 Efficacy of Labelling According to Jodrell (2010) labelling helps the disables children gain their social-identity. In return, social-identity enhances self-efficiency thus improvement in academic performance. In agreement, Lauchlan and Boyle (2007) give a number of effectiveness of using labels in the special education. First, they argue that labelling can lead to treatment as it enhances the access of resources and intervention activities. In explanation, labelling a child can make him or her gain access to a number of opportunities. As one gets the intervention, the learning is enhanced. In the 1970’s labels were critical in education since they determined funding. The relationship between the label and the funding can, therefore, not be denied even today. In other words, labelling can lead to acquisition of extra resources and other types of support from the government and public at large. However, one might question if the support provided as an intervention upon labelling the child meets the needs. In some of the situations, labels have just been used to get funds or place the child to a special school without an attraction to the resources to attract the difficulties of the child. A label can only be of importance if it leads to development of an intervention that will be significantly helpful to the challenged individual. Gross (1994) indicates that the usefulness of the labelling of Asperger syndrome was to help the teaching staff in planning the social needs and curricula of the affected children. She argued that the issuance of the Asperger labels among the affected leads to suitable recommendations and advice on how to tackle the difficulties of the children. For instance, the recommendations might include that the children who suffer from Asperger syndrome to be given a classroom with clear routine, orderly arranged, and highly structured. In case of any changes in routine, the teachers should warn the students in advance. In explanation, a warning of at least 5 minutes should be given to the children before the end of a given less so as to keep them prepared for the next task or activity. However, since the labelling is always done in general manner, it is still uncertain to determine the extent to which the behaviour of an individual child is tackled. Even though some argue that the generalisation strategy is important in labelling, one might argue that the challenges are at the individual level thus need for tailor-made solutions. The individualised programme should be developed that focuses on the strength and weakness of each of the patients. Such a plan will comprehensively address the needs of the child in a more substantive way. That is, in some of the instances, the labels would only be addressing the educational problems and sidelining the rest thus making them less comprehensive. In conclusion, labels have been used in the special education as a means of securing resources to provide services to the needy children. This is one of the main reasons that the labels are still in use today. However, it is still oblique on how the attracted resources are used to meet the needs of each of the children. Some of the families and individuals may seek for a diagnosis in the belief that the label will encourage support or intervention of the challenge this improvement of the life experience of the child and educational provision. Therefore, in case the label does not improve the livelihood and experience of the affected, the patients and families might begin to question its value. Second, labelling can promote the understanding of given difficulties since it creates awareness of the same. In explanation, labelling has made it easier for the public to understand diseases such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder among others. Most of the challenges that patients go through are highly known and understood today because of the level of awareness associated with labelling. Gross (1994) argues that increased awareness raising and recognition may make the adult more tolerant hence helping caregivers and teachers understand particular challenges. In some of the scenarios, a student might feel isolated and unhappy from his peers if not labelled. Being labelled as for example autistic would make the peers understand why the student has a bad body odour, butts in conversation, latches on people, do not have tonal variation, paranoid, and gullible among others. Labelling will make it easier for both the parents, teachers and students to understand the challenges of the child thus creating an element of being sensitive. For instance, his peers might learn to be more patient with him, involve and talk to him more, ensure that he feels welcome, help him in the class activities, points his mistake nicely, and use a clearer language while speaking to the patient. The change in attitude will make the patient feel happier and accepted in the school. It is, therefore, important that the educational psychologists actively engage in the promotion of information dissemination when it comes to syndromes like autism to mainstream the children with such difficulties in the class. The result of such a move is a social inclusion of the children with special needs in the mainstream education system. However, it has been argues that labelling can have significant side effects. For instance, labelling one as one with ‘learning difficulties’ might affect their way of life for the rest of their lives (Hastings, Sonuga‐Barke, & Remington, 1993). Labels might be very hard to shade-off even on the scenarios that the patient achieves much than expected of him or her. Labels can, therefore, determine the future success rate of an individual since they are not mere badges that can be attached to one and later removed. Instead, they have psychological effects that can be permanent. According to Swain, French, and Cameron (2003), a label can lead to social exclusion and other disadvantages from the mainstream society. Third, labels make it easier for the professionals to know the challenges being talked about as it puts forward a clear and non-ambiguous communication. In explanation, professionals in special education use labelling use a set of terminologies to describe their children based on their difficulties. It is normal for the interaction among human to lead to stereotyping and generalisation as way of managing a huge amount of information that otherwise could be difficult to consume. Such generalisation ensures that communication is made easier. In most of the instances, the professional in the special education sector use shared terminology as the easiest way of describing the children. Such shared terminologies are the ones known as labels. The use of label can be helpful since it helps the professionals communicate through the utilisations of shared concepts and languages. Such argument might only be true in the less complex of scenario. On the contrary, generalisation can lead to neglect of a number of aspects of the problem at hand. It might lead to the obstruction of some of the differences among the individuals thus negatively affecting the way they are perceived in the community. In explanation, the children that belong to a particular label are often considered the same hence the in failure in realising the particular difficulties and strengths of the individuals (Green et al. 2005). One would also argue that the method used to attach labels to the children is not correct. For instance, some of the characterization has been based on the use of the level of intelligence quotient to attach labels to children. As a result, some of the students have been incorrectly placed in the special schools. It is not appropriate to use the intelligence quotient tests to label the children because it is not reliable neither is it a valid way of determining disability. It is, therefore, misinformed to use such tests to determine life decisions of children in the education sector. Gillman, Heyman, and Swain (2000) argue that even though the teachers, parents and children expect the professional to conduct the labelling in a scientific way that has not been the case. As a result, the diagnosis provided has always been equivocal. For instance, the professional working in the education sector do not observe the dysfunctional behaviour of the students but instead observe what have been already labelled as dysfunctional based on the values applied in their professional capacity. Some of these values are not shared by others thus making it subjective. The subjectivity potential allows for the abuse of the process as it is prone to importation of value and prejudices into terminology. Gillman, Heyman, and Swain (2000) indicate that the outcomes of the diagnosis and assessment are not objective even though many of the professionals act as if they were. Based on such arguments, one might wonder if the professionals have taken notice of the subjectivity of the process. Such pseudo-scientific processes can be used to analyse the difficulty linked to definition of some of the conditions. For instance, considering the definition of dyslexia, one could tell that the education psychologists and teachers among other professionals might be talking of a different thing (Lauchlan & Boyle, 2007). There has also been an ambiguity between ‘behavioural and emotional difficulties’ labels Asperger Syndrome. Similarly, distinguishing between semantic-pragmatic disorder, Asperger syndrome, and autism has been a problem. Fourth, labels make it easier for children and their families in explaining their challenges. In explanation, labelling gives a common description to the problem hence removing the anonymity of the condition at hand and relieves stress associated with unknown challenge. Some of the challenges might be too complex to explain making labelling the appropriate explanation. An official diagnosis from the expert and issuance of labelling can, therefore, act as an reassurance to the families (Gillman, Heyman, and Swain, 2000). The explanation of the experiences and events can relieve the family of the ambiguity and stress of the unknown. In other words, acquisition of a label ensures that the children, teachers, and parents are less anxious since the problem is deemed less inexplicable or puzzling. In Riddick (2000), dyslexic pupils were interviewed to determine if they considered labelling helpful. One of the student indicated that he preferred being aware of his dyslexia condition but never on the impression that he was stupid. Another one argued that the moment the educational psychologists gave him back the result that we has having the condition, he felt better since he considered himself not to be anymore stupid but just affected by dyslexia. In explanation, the label can give comfort to the children and their families dealing with difficulties to explain why a young person behaves in a given way (Gillman, Heyman and Swain, 2000). However, one could argue that labelling can lead to the loss of focus of the real problem. In explanation, it focuses on the deficit within the child at the expense of exploring the factors in the environment that might have caused the difficulty. In other words, it is important to consider the child’s parents, teachers, and their influence to the difficulty. Labelling should, therefore, be based on the notion that it is an social or structural impairment as opposed to individual context. Fifth, labelling enables the people suffering from the condition to have a social identity. In explanation, it gives them a sense of belonging to a particular group of people with disabilities. Finlay and Lyons (1998) argue that people with learning difficulties in the United Kingdom often face negative social identity because they cannot achieve the societal set goals. Some of the goals set in the society include passing exams in schools, career progress, and living independently. It is possible that it is the reason to why people with learning difficulties might deny often that they have been labelled or do not want to refer to it. As a result, only a few who face the learning difficulties would identify themselves with the group. Labelling can also lead to the victims being teased by their peers. As the peers use pejorative terms to describe the people with disabilities, they seem to be sidelined due to negative aspects. According to Riddick (2000), some of the children put enormous efforts so as not to associate with the labelled group that they belong. Such attempts aim at covering their difficulties as a way of avoiding the alienation of the mainstream domain. It is not usually the label that leads to alienation but the characteristics associated with it. Labelling is, therefore, not the cause of alienation but it is still questionable whether it can detract or enhance how a challenged person is perceived in the society. 2.2 Probable Negative Impacts of Labelling: How it may lead to Stigma Some of the studies have indicated that labelling can lead to stigmatisation. For instance, labelling a child as one with ‘learning difficulties’ may make him or her feel inferior to his or her peers. Some of the labels might be difficult to forget despite the individuals surpassing the standards associated with them in future (Hatton, 2009). In other words, the labels are psychologically harmful and may cause permanent negative effects to the destiny of a person. A label can also lead to social exclusion and disadvantage the victim from the society. Goffman (2009) links deviance to stigmatization. It gives less focus on the labelling process but stigmatization that is associated with deviance. He referred to the process of managing the stigmatisation processes as ‘The management of everyday life.’ The public including the health professionals consider some of the disabilities and conditions to be stigmatising since the medical model doesn’t exist in a vacuum made of culture only. A good example of health conditions that lead to stigmatisation is HIV/AIDS. When such a label is attached to an individual; it uses its power to spoil the identity of the sufferer both socially and personally. The social stigma due to the labelling process can be derived in two ways. First is the ‘enacted’ stigma which is derived from the reaction of the society and may lead to real discriminatory experiences. Second is the ‘felt stigma’ which is an imagination of what the reaction of the society would be thus leading to a drastic change of the personality of the sufferer. Goffman (2009) argues that an individual might hide his or her discrediting characteristic from the public but not her or himself. The labelling impacts and its effects that lead to stigmatisation can be considered as the negative feedback that leads to significant fall in social participation. The process can be diagrammatically presented as shown in figure 1 below. Figure 1: Negative Feedback between Participation, Self-esteem, and Stigmatisation [Taylor and Field (1993)] For instance, meeting the needs of a disable child can lead to significant impact on the family members as well as the victim. It affects the social life patterns and work life of the family members. Furthermore, the families might experience ‘stigma by association’ or ‘courtesy stigma’ due to their direct link to the child. As a result, the family will be forced to cope with their feeling of guilt or shame and might try to distance themselves from the disability in different ways. For the case of mental illness, labelling can have a significant impact and is conducted by a psychiatrist. Once the patient has been declared as mentally ill, the labelling theory argue that the patient losses his old identity and ascribes to a new one. The labelled person will, therefore, internalise their new social status and identity as well as taking the role of psychiatric patient with all its expected obligations. The outcome of the process would be stigmatisation that is linked to the labelling of the ‘psychiatric patient’ from his usual interactions. 2.3 Labelling is Not the Only Reason for Stigma Even though labelling is linked to stigmatisation, it cannot be the primary cause. In explanation, the disabled in the society can be stigmatised even if they are not labelled. There have been scenarios in which children are stigmatised prior to labelling of the difficulties (Lauchlan and Boyle, 2007). It is, therefore, inaccurate to argue that labelling automatically causes stigmatisation. Riddick (2000) performed a study to prove that children with difficulties have been going through stigmatization even prior to labelling. The study was particularly to those who are dyslexic. In her study, the children argued that they feel being stigmatised by their counterparts due to the difficulties associated with their challenges. These include finishing their class work last or poor handwriting or spelling. In explanation, the label ‘dyslexia’ was not the cause of stigmatisation but their capability to do things. It is, therefore, not the label that causes stigmatisation but it can distil or encapsulate the one that already exists. Since the study was only to the dyslexic, it is important that studies be carried to different difficulties such as autism and learning difficulties with the intention of proving the same. But in case stigmatisation is linked labelling, efforts are already on with the intention of mitigating the consequences. For example, there have been legislations that prohibit discrimination of persons on the basis of gender, race, and disability. 2.4 Stigma and Defiance Concept: Interactionist Theory The stigma and defiance concept can only be understood better through the interactionist theory. Even though the origin of the theory can be traced back to 18th and 19th Century, it came to be known in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Quicke & Winter, 1994). Its main argument has been that labelling someone interrupts the past action of the individual. 2.5 Justification of the Interactionist Theory The interactionist sociological perspectives analyses the use of symbolic meanings to depict illness and heath. It can, therefore, be used to describe the people that are healthy and those that have challenges and referred to the society as disable. It uses the shared imagery and connotation associated with particular group of people and events that actions are significantly based. 3.0 Labelled People with Disability and Interactionist Theory The author of the theory is Howard Becker. According to Becker (1963), social groups develop deviance through creating rules that enhance it. The rule make enhances the labelling of a particular group of people thus making them deem as outsiders. Deviant is the individual whose labelling has been applied to successfully. According to the theory, no actions are considered deviant or criminal naturally. It all depends with the perception and reaction of the society in given contexts and situations. Deviance is, therefore, relative and subject to interpretation. In explanation, it changes based on the historical period and cultural context. Becker (1963), therefore, argues that no act is deviant unless it is labelled. Labelling people with disability can be considered to be deviance under the interactionist theory. In explanation, the theory argues that the main concept of defiance is based on labelling and power. It argues that the deviance as a social construction needs two main activities: a group that is relatively powerless and behaves in a given way and a group that is relatively powerful that responds negatively to the weaker one. The stronger group is the one that labels, the weaker one as outlaws or outsiders. The weaker group are deemed to be the people with the disability while the stronger ones are those without. The stronger group, therefore, labels the weaker group as a way of highlighting their weakness. They create laws and rules that define what deviance consists and those who fail to meet the characteristics are termed the outsiders. Becker (1973) also issues the concept of ‘agents of social control.’ This group is made of the professionals such as the probation workers, social workers, the judiciary, and the police and represent the powerful group. On behalf of the powerful group, they define and label the behaviour of the disabled people in the society. In addition, they issue a greater control and surveillance on the people with challenges in the society. So it is the society that creates the rules and people who do not conform to the rules are considered deviant. As a result, the act is not deviant but the labelling is what makes it so. According to the interactionists, an act can be considered defiant in one scenario and normal in another. In explanation, an act becomes deviant when the public considers it to be improper. The interactionists argue that labelling can make the disadvantaged in the society be victimised. For instance, the blind in the society can be labelled as stubborn. So people are more likely to avoid them. In addition, interactionists say that labelling is a way of singling out an individual as deviant and might make the person have the traits of deviance as they are labelled. 4.0 Conclusion Social groups can develop deviance through coming up with rules that make them and applying those rules to a particular group of people and naming them as deviant. An individual to whom labelling has been successfully applied is known as deviant. There are, therefore, no actions that are deemed naturally deviant or criminal but depends with the perception and reaction of the society in a given place and time. Deviance is, therefore, subject to interpretation and is defined by historical period and cultural context. It can, therefore, disappear as time goes passes. According to the interactionist theory, labelling is important since it helps the patients to be treated; creates awareness and enhances pubic understanding, and provide clear communication when it comes to particular challenges that would rather be considered complex. Labelling also offers comfort to the children and their families and provides the people suffering with social identity. Even though, there might be some contradiction to labelling, it is important to those who face difficulties. References Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Simon and Schuster Books Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press. Finlay, M., & Lyons, E. (1998). Social identity and people with learning difficulties: Implications for self-advocacy groups. Disability & society, 13(1), 37-51. Gillman, M., Heyman, B., & Swain, J. (2000). What's in a name? The implications of diagnosis for people with learning difficulties and their family carers. Disability & society, 15(3), 389-409. Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Simon and Schuster. Green, S., Davis, C., Karshmer, E., Marsh, P., & Straight, B. (2005). Living stigma: The impact of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination in the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families. Sociological Inquiry, 75(2), 197-215. Gross, J. (1994). Asperger syndrome: A label worth having?. Educational Psychology in Practice, 10(2), 104-110. Hastings, R. P., Sonuga‐Barke, E. J., & Remington, B. (1993). An analysis of labels for people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(4), 463-465. Hatton, N. (2009). The labelling effect: drama, mental health and learning disability. RiDE: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 14(1), 91-95. Jodrell, D. (2010). Social-Identity and Self-Efficacy Concern for Disability Labels. Psychology Teaching Review, 16(2), 111-121. Lauchlan, F., & Boyle, C. (2007). Is the use of labels in special education helpful?. Support for learning, 22(1), 36-42. Quicke, J., & Winter, C. (1994). Labelling and learning: An interactionist perspective. Support for Learning, 9(1), 16-21. Riddick, B. (2000). An examination of the relationship between labelling and stigmatisation with special reference to dyslexia. Disability & Society, 15(4), 653-667. Swain, J., French, S., & Cameron, C. (2003). Controversial issues in a disabling society. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education. Taylor, S. & Field, D. (1993). Sociology of health and healthcare – An introduction for nurses. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Read More