What’s in a student’s name?
What about the name special education? NPR has an article today about how special education language has evolved. So why not drop the term special ed? I think a lot of parents and teachers would rejoice at that.
The trouble with getting rid of words or changing them to be politically correct, is if we get rid of the name we could also see services disappear. I think that’s what’s happening today.
So how do we address a child’s unique abilities and weaknesses without turning them into a label?
Consider learning disabilities. Much harm has been done, I think, in trying to drop the classifications surrounding learning disabilities. They still exist. Almost all of us have them. But instead of trying to better understand what they are and how to address them we push them aside.
Instead of specializing more when it comes to learning disabilities, you will be hard-pressed to find this area of instruction standing alone in a university setting today. Learning disabilities have been mashed into other special education classes…what’s left of those.
Universities used to teach teachers about learning disabilities. Many of us received credentialing and/or degrees in this area. We learned how to diagnose LD and how to use teaching strategies to address them. We also learned how to teach students how to adapt to having mild differences. Learning disabilities was a special area all its own.
Believe it or not, how to address students with reading difficulties, including dyslexia, was also in the mix of what we learned.
But the term learning disabilities is offensive to some–especially children. I once had a student who hid in the hallway and always came to my classroom late because he did not want other students to know he had difficulties.
Yet, how many parents around the country are angry that their students have special needs that are not being addressed today? Therein, I believe, lies the problem.
Ironically, I recently ran across words from 1941, written by Samuel A. Kirk, who is remembered as the “father of special education.”
Kirk is discussing the differences between regular and special education classrooms and who should be responsible for instructing students with special needs. I was struck by how the article could have been written today if not for the dated language—considered acceptable for that time.
Our jaws would drop if a child was called “mentally defective, average or dull,” or if we addressed a child as “crippled.” But behind such words, Kirk ushered in a period in our history where we focused more on children and how to help them learn than ever before!
Here he describes the need for special equipment and resources for students with extreme types of exceptionalities. He says:
The lack of special equipment, the lack of special skill on the part of the teacher, and the large classes found in many schools make it difficult to adapt instruction to the wide differences among individuals. The regular class teacher, on the other hand, has many children that are not mentally defective but are dull; children that are not markedly visually handicapped but have some visual defect; children that are not completely deaf but have some degree of impairment of hearing; children that are not delinquent but have minor behavior difficulties; children that are not gifted, but still are quite bright; and children that are not so crippled that they need special equipment yet have minor physical handicaps. In other words, the regular classroom teacher has in her class not only so-called average children, but many that possess minor handicaps or special abilities. Every teacher, therefore, is to some extent a teacher of exceptional children, and should utilize with some modifications the techniques employed to educate the more extreme forms of handicapped or gifted children.
Kirk also saw the need for special classes to address extreme disabilities.
The NPR article is all about special education-related words evolving. I agree that special education language is important, and also that children are hurt by words. But getting so politically correct that you lose services is to be guarded against.
We need to look individually at all children and address the difficulties that get in the way of their welfare and happiness. Understanding the meaning behind their difficulties without labeling could be done if we still recognized what those problems are and how to address them.
That’s the challenge for all of us.
Reference
Kirk, Samuel A. 1991. From the CEC Archives “We Have Been Engaged.” Teaching Exceptional Children. 23 (4): 5.
Perhaps the answer once again comes from Finland where every 7 year old entering the school system is given an IEP so there is no stigma. Studies show that by creating more individualized approaches with students, many learn coping mechanisms by the time they enter what we call middle school.
Our reactive approach waits until students show wear and tear from their needs (usually also about the time the enter middle school for many) and then we stigmatize the by making them “special”.
I thought I knew a lot about Finland, but I did not know this. Thank you for sharing, Dave. That makes so much sense!
In Florida, we use the MTSS Process in which the classroom teacher begins interventions with her students who are struggling. The problem is that teacher education programs are not providing enough training for students with disabilities–all children have some sort of disability and my fear is that our teachers are either going to figure out interventions on their own quickly or their student are going
to be left behind.
Is MTSS better at catching high performing students who may be struggling than RTI is?
If we emphasize student natural talents, the so-called distinction disappears. I find the comment about “services would disappear” to have your “cake and eat it too.”
In other words, we want to have services but eliminate the categorization of students. You are asking taxpayers to pay for services to kids but you don’t want to categorize kids. Sorry, as a taxpayer this makes no sense.
However, if you want to eliminate special education than we must transform government schools to emphasize talents over a deficit-based curriculum Thus, it is the curriculum that creates the deficit teaching and learning environment not the kid.
Thank you for your comment. Services continue in the general education classroom as inclusion. The problem with this in many places is that the promise was for team teaching. A special ed. teacher working with a general ed. teacher in the classroom. Schools would benefit from a continuum of services in the school, where students get the help they need but are still able to be with their peers. Lowering general education class size would help too.
I agree Nancy.
Thanks.
And then we put them in regular classes where I am told to run two or three concurrent classes at the same time (madness!). So I run one class and read everything out loud.
Did I mention I have limited training in special education?
I’ll do the best i can, even with a special education co-teacher but we can’t save everyone.
Just the facts in the trenches.
Good point since everyone is special maybe Finland has it right. They must they are # 1. A lot of special ed. starts with parents and their issues. Sometimes we need to get over labels. Start earlier get rid of poverty treat people like humans we haven’t learned to that yet. Look how long it took to get rid of “retard” the label and Trump supporters still use it.
This is the concern. Thank you for sharing.
I’m a baby boomer. In grade school I received speech and occupational therapy in first & second grade and tutoring & psychological services in fourth grade. I received psychological services in eighth & ninth grade and occupational therapy in ninth & eleventh grade.
What amazes me the most is that there were no meetings with my parents. There weren’t any labels either. My teachers knew that I was a regular kid who needed a boost in some areas and made it happen.
I graduated high school with a B average, served a tour in the Air Force and later earned a degree in Social Work with an A- in my major and a B average overall
My experience was awesome and I realize how very fortunate I am..
All special education schools and classes and the labeling of any child as “disabled” must be made illegal all over the world as it really scars the victim child for life and it is no different than pointing at the child and saying “I hate you because you are disabled!!” as there are no disabled people in the entire world!!!.
Labels are used to classify a child’s difficulties and I agree with you that they can be harmful. But I don’t think it means people are saying I hate you. I think labels are used for lack of any better way to get children services. It is interesting that some labels are better accepted. Many parents have no problem using the label dyslexia, for example.
But I agree with you that labels in special ed. can cause stigma, and that it would be great if we could get to where they aren’t used.
Thank you, Christopher.