See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344596205

Special Educational Needs Categorisation Systems: To Be Labelled or Not?

Article  in  International Journal of Disability Development and Education · October 2020

DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2020.1825641

CITATION READS

1 644

1 author:

Kyriakos Demetriou
University of Nicosia
6 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyriakos Demetriou on 23 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Special Educational Needs Categorisation Systems:

To Be Labelled or Not?

Kyriakos Demetriou

To cite this article: Kyriakos Demetriou (2020): Special Educational Needs Categorisation
Systems: To Be Labelled or Not?, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2020.1825641

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1825641

Published online: 09 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 49

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cijd20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1825641

Special Educational Needs Categorisation Systems: To Be

Labelled or Not?
Kyriakos Demetriou
Department of Education, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper explores the debatable usefulness of the categorisation Classification; labelling;
of Special Educational Needs considering evidence from the litera­ special educational needs;
ture. Classification systems of SEN are discussed through a brief stigmatisation
historical review. In addition, the language of special education and
the potential consequences of such a classification and labels are
explored. Also, strengths and limitations of the continuous use of
the traditional categories and labels as well as the extent of their
usefulness in the wider context of inclusive education are exam­
ined. The main purpose is not to simply blame SEN labels as causes
of discrimination, marginalisation and stigmatisation but to more
broadly examine their usefulness. The article concludes with
a discussion of possible solutions and future implications.

Introduction
It is a matter of fact that the number of students who are classified as students with
Special Educational Needs (SEN), increases internationally year by year. Around one
in five children in England is identified as having SEN (Vignoles, 2015). Naturally, such
an increase is directly defined by the dominant classification system at a particular
time and location (Florian & McLaughlin, 2008). The dominant classification system in
England defines the nature and the extent of provision provided to students identi­
fied with SEN by the educational system (Department of Education (DfE), 2015). Thus,
the large number of students with SEN increases the likelihood of them being
excluded from the mainstream classroom depending on the nature of their SEN
and label and how inclusive the mainstream schools are. Therefore, some labelled
students do not have equal learning opportunities but are condemned to be isolated
and sometimes to fail because of the inadequacy of the educational system. This
paper aims to explore the debatable usefulness of the SEN categories and labels. The
main purpose is not to simply blame SEN labels as causes of discrimination, margin­
alisation and stigmatisation but to more broadly examine their usefulness from the
perspective of inclusive educational settings. This will lead to a critical discussion
about the appropriateness of existing SEN categorisation and labels, possible solu­
tions and future implications.

CONTACT Kyriakos Demetriou demetriou.ky@unic.ac.cy

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 K. DEMETRIOU

From Special to Inclusive Education and SEN Classification

Although inclusion as a philosophy sounds quite new, it actually has its origins back in the
late 1800s (Hodkinson, 2012) and it is only recently that efforts have been applied to put
this venture into practice. Before the introduction of the Forster Act in England, children
with disabilities were educated at home separately from children without disabilities.
When the Forster Act came into force in 1870, the state became responsible for all
children’s schooling with the main goal being to produce skilled workers ready to
contribute to the rising industrial productivity of the country (Wood, 2004). The Act
recognised the right to education for everyone either with or without disabilities but
did not specify variations of provision for those who experienced difficulties. The absence
of curriculum adaptations led to significant problems while children with disabilities
seemed unable to learn and therefore should have been educated in separate settings
(Hodkinson, 2016). It was the onset of the massive segregation of children with disabilities
from the mainstream school, the main reason why special education has received a lot of
criticism.
Several Educational Acts were introduced during and after that time to describe the
special provision for those who were thought to be non-educable in mainstream settings.
Of particular interest are the terminology and language used to categorise those children;
they reflect the social attitudes towards children who were considered as different from
the so-called ‘norm’. For instance, the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913 which replaced the
Idiots Act 1886 (His Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), 1908) introduced the categories of
ineducables, feeble-minded and moral defectives. A long time after 1913, the Educational
Act of 1944 marked the first time when special education was conceptualised within the
frames of general education (Wedell, 2008). The influence of the medical model in
classification systems of SEN was dominant until 1944. Thus, the educational Act of
1944 not only mentioned the term ‘disabilities of body or mind’ but also introduced
eleven categories of handicap, which were deaf, partially deaf, blind, partially sighted,
physically handicapped, delicate, diabetic, epileptic, educationally subnormal, maladjusted,
and those with speech defects. Although this Act also promoted the concept of main­
streaming, such a classification excluded children with SEN from mainstream schools.
Later on, there occurred a debate about human rights which became the crucial
argument within parental circles and the community of people with disabilities. In
England, policies that promoted separate schooling for children with disabilities became
increasingly questioned (Hodkinson, 2016). These resulted in a dramatic change in
policies (Slee, 2012), including the terminology and language of the subsequent
Educational Acts. This constant pressure for change led to the formation of the
Warnock Committee and the drafting of the Warnock Report (Department of Education
and Science (DES), 1978); a definitive Report for the long history of special education.
Beveridge (1999) says that the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) recognised every child’s
apparent SEN. Thus, it highlighted the inappropriateness of the existing categorisation
system and proposed its suppression. The Warnock Report (DES, 1978) also identified the
stigmatisation of a child simply because of its identification as ‘disabled’ as well as the
minimum usefulness of labelling. Therefore, the Committee suggested that previous
categories should be replaced with wider and more general ones. The common general
category named ‘learning difficulties’ could be further sub-categorised as mild, moderate,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 3

severe or specific (Beveridge, 1999). The Warnock Report (DES, 1978) definitely altered
categorisation standards and reduced the influence of the medical model.
The 1981 Education Act is manifestly influenced by the Warnock Report (DES, 1978).
According to this Act, as cited in Wedell (2008), ‘a child has SEN if he has a learning
difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him’ (Wedell, 2008,
p. 54). Furthermore, in accordance with the Act of 1981 (Department of Education and
Science (DES), 1981), a child has a learning difficulty if he/she has a significantly greater
difficulty in learning than the vast majority of children of same age, or if he/she has
a disability which either prevents or hinders him/her from making use of educational
facilities in a manner provided at schools (Muncey & Palmer, 1995). Hayhoe (2017) argues
that the Warnock Report introduced an additional less accurate label because despite the
introduction of the generic term ‘SEN’, British society continued and even continues to
consider children with sensory impairments as having those labels too (i.e deaf, blind etc)
and many children got insufficient support and were excluded by teachers and peers as
a consequence.
In 1988, the United Kingdom introduced the market economy model in education
which endorsed the competition between schools for higher rankings in league tables.
The rank of each school is defined by its students’ achievements and final grades.
Therefore, children with a learning difficulty were at serious risk of being excluded by
mainstream schools (Hodge, 2016). Thus, an ex officio category of students was created, in
other words, the ‘disapplied’ students, who were consequently at risk of being stigmatised.
In the 1990s, the Salamanca Statement (United Nations Educational Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 1994) changed the world map of special education and
called for inclusion to be the norm for all nations that signed and ratified the statement.
The agreement is known as the cornerstone of inclusive education with a great influence
on the evolution of inclusive education in the UK. The election of a new Labour
Government in 1997 gave a remarkable boost towards inclusion. A number of documents
such as the Green Paper (Department of Education and Employment (DfEE), 1997) and the
1998 Program of Action (Department of Education and Employment (DfEE), 1998) and the
subsequent 2001 Code of Practice (DfES (Department for Education and Skills), 2001) –
which was edited due to the force of circumstances and under the pressure of parents’
demands – highlighted the government’s commitment towards inclusion, and confirmed
that the special educational needs of children would normally be met in mainstream
settings (Hodkinson, 2016). Wedell (2008) maintains that the new Code changed the
categorisation standards. The term disability was already replaced by the term difficulty in
the 1993 Education Act (Department for Education (DfE), 1993) and appears in the
subsequent 2001 SEN Code of Practice. In addition, eight areas of SEN were defined
which were grouped under the wider terms difficulties, conditions, impairments and
disabilities. Impairments and difficulties were listed as sensory impairments including
hearing difficulties, and visual difficulties. Conditions were referred to as medical condi­
tions and finally the term which still included the word ‘disability’, was ‘physical disability’
(Wedell, 2008).
More recent legislation continues to place considerable emphasis on inclusion. For
instance, the Children and Families Act (Department of Education (DfE), 2010; Department
of Education (DfE), 2014) which gives parents, carers and families the flexibility to choose
the setting their child with disability may attend as any other child and this implies that
4 K. DEMETRIOU

children with SEN will not necessarily attend a special school (Pritchard & Brodie, 2015).
This change extends parents’ choices and empowers children with disabilities who can
now be involved in the decision-making process. In addition, the revised National
Curriculum (DfE, 2014) and policies such as Teaching Standards (Department of
Education (DfE), 2011) underline the requirement and educators’ responsibility to pro­
mote equity and inclusion in their practice.
Despite the policies that are in place which seek the transformation of the educa­
tional system in order for it to become fully inclusive, a number of factors prevent this
from taking place. The current educational practice is not always in accordance with
the policy as the so-called inclusive learning environment often becomes exclusive for
children with disabilities in mainstream settings (Slee, 2012). For example, children
with disabilities may be withdrawn from the mainstream classroom for special provi­
sion, and are therefore being taught separately from their peers in segregated set­
tings. This disharmony between theory and practice reflects the unchanged attitudes
of the society towards disability, including prejudiced educators who may also not be
trained well to integrate those children in their settings (Mallett & Runswick-Cole,
2014).
Many conservative societies still view disability through the lens of medicalisation
which considers it as a personal tragedy and the same time pays no attention to the
obstacles that society places in the way of people with disabilities (Goodley, 2014). These
views perpetuate a generally negative attitude and stigma towards disability resulting in
the unfair treatment of people with disabilities in every aspect of their life, including the
educational system. However, this is not the case in every culture. In most modern
societies, the old-fashioned charity-related model has been replaced by the model of
human rights where the societal norms have moved from the spontaneous stances of pity
and mercy to the emphasis of inalienable and equal human rights for everyone either with
disability or not (Retief & Letšosa, 2018). There are also societies where the two models co-
exist. (Phtiaka, 2008). This cross-cultural heterogeneity shows the complexity of the
connotation of disability in different countries where despite its consideration through
the lens of the human-rights approach to disability, negative views may be underlying
(Darling, 2013; Johnstone, Limaye, & Kayama, 2017).
Nevertheless, it is apparent that any attempt to move towards a more inclusive
society – including legislation and policies – may be at risk if many people maintain
negative views towards disability, especially when those views are reflected in the
language and terminology that are being used to categorise disability and impairment
in legislation per se.
Different governments, countries, communities, professionals and institutions hold
views of what inclusion really means. Most stakeholders understand inclusive practice
as the formation of a physical space where children with and without disabilities are all
within the same physical environment (Slee, 2012). However, this approach of physical
access on one hand facilitates the provision-oriented categorisation of SEN and on the
other hand sidelines the importance of the cultivation of an ambience of acceptance
and the promotion of positive attitudes towards disability. According to Hodkinson
(2010), positive attitudes towards disability and enabling a learning environment that is
accessible by everyone are the two main requirements for a truly inclusive
environment.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 5

Current Classification Systems and SEN Labels

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2000) lists the
United Kingdom as one of those countries which have a non-categorical system of SEN.
Nevertheless, according to the UK legislation, a broader category of SEN with sub-
categories is indirectly implied in descriptions of what is provided (DfE, 2015). The revised
legislation of 1981, which abandons the sub-categories of SEN, may perhaps illustrate the
rationale of this fact (Norwich, 2014). The OECD (2000), according to Norwich (2007),
points out that ‘those with SEN are defined by the additional public and/or private
resources provided to support their education’ (p. 58). Thus, the emphasis shifts towards
educational provision and away from child characteristics and implies that all four areas of
exceptional needs are included into a united framework. Norwich (2014) suggests that
this is a possible implication of the Warnock Report. Whether the UK defines SEN in terms
of the provision or in terms of children’s characteristics remains uncertain. In addition,
Norwich speculates as to whether the UK goes back to the pre-Warnock system. Despite
the adoption of the relatively new categorisation system as initially proposed by the
Warnock Report, in 2003 the UK government introduced eleven areas of SEN ‘similar in
principle to eleven categories of education handicap used until 1980’ (Norwich, 2014,
p. 59); the period before the Warnock Report.
According to the latest version of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of
Practice (DfE, 2015) – which constitutes the statutory guidance for organisations which
work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or
disabilities – four wide-ranging categories of SEN continue to exist, although they are not
called categories of SEN, but ‘broad areas of need’. The four broad areas of need are
communication and interaction; cognition and learning; social, emotional and mental
health difficulties; and sensory and/or physical needs. Although the titles of these needs-
oriented categories are slightly different and fewer in comparison to previous versions of
the SEND Codes of practice (i.e. DfES, 2001), the sub-divisions of these broad areas are
more disability-oriented. In addition, the new Code of Practice replaces the term SEN with
the term SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) in order to right the misconcep­
tion that SEN is a synonym for disability (Pritchard & Brodie, 2015). This relatively new
system compared to other classification systems tends to be quite similar with the US
system, although it uses different terms (Norwich, 2014).

Language of Special Education

Language sometimes has immense power and strengths and is often used by politicians
and by the media to generate emotional responses. The vocabulary and terminology used
in special education reflect the images and codes influenced by policies and politics
(Barton, 1987) and the societal attitudes, values and beliefs about disability (Halder, Assaf,
& Keeffe, 2017). Language and terminology used throughout the world acquire different
and subjective interpretations not because of the different functional or intellectual
capacities of individuals with disabilities but because of the significant role of societal
and cultural stereotypes and the subsequent barriers that they create at a particular time
(Halder et al., 2017). For example, a functional definition or label that is usually used to
describe a sensory impairment is based on how a person with that impairment behaves
6 K. DEMETRIOU

differently from what is regarded as ‘normal’ within that society. The understanding and
interpretation of the normal depend on cultural environment and the historical time
(Hoyle, 2017). In the case of the UK, the revised phrase ‘SEN’ originated from the term
‘special needs’. The inclusion of the word ‘educational’ tends to specialise those needs as
needs in education and not as needs in a general concept within the broader society. It is
important to explore the way in which language has been used. Corbett (1996), points out
that ‘the language we use expresses our confidence, caution, commitment or doubt’ (p.2).
For example, if the phrase ‘special needs’ is divided into two separate words and we
isolate the first part, we can easily understand that ‘special’ does not mean especially
good (Norwich, 1999). Therefore, the terminology frequently used in special education
must be understood as a reflection of social conditioning and also, as a reflection of our
attitudes towards disability. The Warnock Report replaced – at least in the UK- the ‘hard’
language of, for example, the words ‘handicapped’ or ‘subnormality’ with ‘lighter’ terms
such as ‘SEN’. However, the Warnock Report expanded the notion of SEN, introduced
a different form of labelling (i.e children with statements of SEN) for administrative
purposes (Hayhoe, 2017) and led to the dramatic increase of the proportion of labelled
children from 2% to 20% (Vignoles, 2015).
Goffman (1963) declares that societies define characteristics and attributes to repre­
sent ‘normal’. If anyone does not fulfil the particular settings he/she is branded as
a ‘stranger’. In that case, the society creates social ‘identities’ and ‘statuses’ which uncon­
sciously transform ‘normative expectations into righteously presented demands’ (p.12).
According to Goffman, norms and stereotypes create ‘virtual society identities’, which are
usually underestimated in our minds. This discount of ‘identified’ people leads to a stigma,
‘an undesired differentness from what we had anticipated’ (p.14). That is to say, anyone
who deviates from certain expectations of society may be stigmatised and be considered
abnormal. Stigmatisation ensues from the disempowerment of the members of the
stigmatised group whose rights, opportunities and lives in general are designated by
those who hold the power in the social hierarchy (Scior, 2016). The negative and pre­
judiced attitudes of the members of the society towards disability are based on the
misconception that different abilities are equal to weakness, dysfunction, dependency
and inferiority (Muster, 2017). It is apparent that the socially constructed stigma differs
cross-culturally and impacts the everydayness of individuals with disabilities differently
around the world (Darling, 2013; Johnstone et al., 2017).
Stigma has detrimental and even permanent effects on the individuals concerned.
A stigmatised person potentially experiences failure, isolation, shame, exclusion, margin­
alisation or even despair (Ditchman, Kosyluk, & Lee, 2016; Johnstone et al., 2017). It causes
massive psychological challenges and leads to injured psyche as a result of both the pain
from the physical symptoms of the impairment and the damage created by the societal
reactions (Muster, 2017). This oppression is a result of ableism that is created by the
members of the community who are not considered as differently abled.
That particular stigma creates particular categories, which means that other persons’
conceptions and prejudices identify an individual and integrate him/her in a specific
category (Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2003). It is essential to note that social identity
influences personal identity, in other words the way an individual understands himself
(Kelly & Norwich, 2004), thus the social stigma becomes an internalised self-stigma which
may lead to low self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety and marginalisation (Lewis & Crisp,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 7

2004) and cause confusion in self-concept and identity (Roth, Barak, & Peretz, 2016). For
example, the term ‘mental retardation’ has been abandoned by the American Association
on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities only since 2006, although the word ‘retard’
is still in use in several cultures (Scior, 2016). Despite the theoretical abandonment of the
harsh term ‘retardation’, the new term ‘intellectual disability’ is also stigmatising due to
the reactions of the mass such as pity, anxiety, avoidance, hostility and sometimes hatred
and disgust (Ditchman et al., 2016). An individual with intellectual disability becomes
aware of those cultural stereotypes which they endorse and then apply to themselves
(Sheehan & Ali, 2016).
The manifestations of disability stigma change over time (Mayer, 2017). Today,
emphasis is placed on the appreciation of diversity and respect of human dignity
and identity. This impacted on the shift to inclusive language which puts the person
first and whereas there is disability, it is placed second in what is known as people-first
language. The logic behind this approach is to treat an individual as a person first and
then as a person with disability (Halder et al., 2017). For example, in the case of autism,
the individual would be called ‘a person with autism’ rather than ‘an autistic person’.
However, Tobbell and Lawthom (2005) argue that even this approach enables people
to locate the ‘problem’ within the individual. Also, some disability communities (e.g.
Deaf and Blind) prefer the identity-first language as deafness or blindness is an
integral part of their identity that enables them to be part of the corresponding
community with the same identity (Dunn & Andrews, 2015). This means that there is
a quite complex ethical dilemma involved in the choice of terminology, names and
words in SEN labels. Labels have been associated with stigmatisation, although it
seems that, on the other hand, some labels do have some usefulness. Therefore,
demonising labels may not be the answer to this dilemma, as there may be utility
by using such labels.

Usefulness of SEN Labels

One of the questions is whether educators would have changed their planning, monitor­
ing and teaching if they had labelled students with learning difficulties or unlabelled
students with similar difficulties in their mainstream classroom (Lewis & Norwich, 2005)?
In planning, teachers define objective aims they want to accomplish, taking into account
the general education aims, students’ strengths, available time, the educational environ­
ment and the existing infrastructure (Test et al., 2016). Furthermore, they try to combine
current knowledge with their students’ previous knowledge in order to influence their
future knowledge. Planning is related to the aims set and therefore teachers’ planning
may be influenced by the characteristics and needs of their labelled students. However,
the query is whether certain labels of SEN lead to essentially improved targets or if they in
fact make the procedure more complicated?
Monitoring is related to evaluation and assessment, which essentially means that
during and after the teaching process, teachers monitor how successful they are in
achieving the aims they have set (Kurth, Marks, & Bartz, 2016). Monitoring actually assists
educators in checking changes brought about by their teaching. It is an essential element
for the entire teaching process because teachers have the opportunity to change their
planning in order to construct more effective learning environments. The question here
8 K. DEMETRIOU

could be whether educators would have changed their monitoring and assessment
practices if they have labelled or unlabelled students with learning difficulties?
Teaching involves a broad spectrum of pedagogical processes. After planning, teachers
have to implement their lesson plans. In order to put a lesson plan into practice, educators
must choose the appropriate methodological approaches and environment as well as
suitable teaching means and strategies to strengthen teaching effectiveness and enhance
learning for each learner (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Teaching and learning are closely
related since the latter is a result of the former. Thus, the quality of teaching influences the
essential learning considerably. According to Norwich and Lewis (2001), teachers usually
connect SEN with special pedagogy. In other words, they believe that they should sub-
divide their teaching into SEN teaching and non-SEN teaching, an approach which
evidently increases anxious and negative attitudes. Some also argue that ‘what works
with most pupils would also work for all’ (p.324), and that there are unique differences
among all students.
This argument may suggest that labels are not always necessary and agrees with
Lauchlan and Boyle (2007) conclusion that the overall effectiveness of such labels in
education may be limited. On the contrary, Draper (2018) points out that SEN labels
should be seen as informative elements that provide important and necessary informa­
tion about the diagnosis, additional support and services that a particular student
receives, extra time on assignments, preferred seating and so on. This information –
which is the outcome of a multidisciplinary collaboration and may not be available with
the absence of a label – enables teachers to make decisions that will affect their planning,
monitoring and teaching in a way that will benefit their learners with SEN in their settings
(Jodrell, 2010). It is apparent that the absence of labels may require teachers to discover all
this information on their own.
However, Draper (2018) argues that teachers should be careful when it comes to
interpret disability labels. The reason is that the information about diagnosis that
a label carries will not always include everything that a teacher should bear in mind
when it comes to planning, monitoring and teaching. Each individual has unique char­
acteristics, even individuals from the same category of SEN. Therefore, labels should not
be rejected straightaway as they seem to have merits in terms of educational practice. At
this point, the exploration of the usefulness of categories and labels of SEN by considering
their strengths and limitations according to the literature will be helpful.
Before pointing out the strengths and potential limitations of the SEN labels, it is
essential to briefly outline the principal purposes of categorisation of SEN. The first
approach is that the classification is based on the diagnosis in order to determine
a suitable intervention program. This makes it closely similar approach to that of the
medical model (Goodley, 2014). The diagnosis identifies the particular dysfunctional
characteristics of a child and an intervention programme is formed or selected in order
to deal with his/her learning difficulties. In this situation, the goal of classification is to
nominate the kind of ‘abnormality’ using numerous categories and subcategories of SEN.
Nevertheless, the use of medical models for categorisation in education has been dis­
puted by many professionals of education (Florian et al., 2006) due to stigmatisation and
labelling (Tomlinson, 2012). The second approach to classification focuses on parental
expectations. Parents often tend to prefer labels which do not imply any genetic endow­
ment or parental negligence (Florian et al., 2006), especially when the label given to their
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 9

children focuses mainly on one particular feature of their child while the other character­
istics and capacities are ignored. On the other hand, parents usually prefer a label which
grants their child access to a substantial provision of educational services, benefits
(Wedell, 2003) and equal learning opportunities (Goodley, 2014).
Legal protection seems to be an additional purpose of SEN identification and categor­
isation (Ho, 2004). Many countries have disability legislation which requires identification
of individuals as learning-disabled in order to be protected and to map out various
services and special provisions. However, Norwich (1999) points out that no correspon­
dence exists, for example, between labels of impairments and the required educational
provision. He refers to the example of Down syndrome which has no relationship
whatsoever with the expected educational provision. This label clearly has a medical
origin and the necessary provision is likely to be different from child to child. The same
goes for the term ‘mental retardation’ which is still in use in many countries (Boyle, 2014).
Also, there is a potential danger of placing people into a wrong category or having
children falsely identified with SEN. This may have happened because the legislation in
many countries provides funding for individuals with SEN (Norwich, 2014) or because
identification facilitates the teaching process by moving some students away from the
mainstream classroom.
It is apparent that there have been political factors related to SEN identification in
inclusive educational settings (Florian & McLaughlin, 2008). As expected, one of those is
the economic cost whereas the second factor is the necessity for the clarification of the
relationship between the equity of economic resources and the inclusive educational
provision. Burke and Ruedel (2008) agree that the existence of a categorisation system is
a very essential step for the equitable allocation of resources, opportunities, supports,
accommodations and other instructional services which are associated with political-
administrative purposes (Hayhoe, 2017; Norwich, 2014). However, the most critical chal­
lenge is the determination of who is eligible to receive special support (Florian &
McLaughlin, 2008). Concerns were expressed by many teachers that a non-problematic
classification system of SEN probably leads to not necessarily appropriate provision
(Florian & McLaughlin, 2008).
Norwich (2014) points out that if a child experiencing difficulties in learning is identi­
fied and labelled as having SEN, he/she is at high risk of being stigmatised. For example,
children carrying the label of ‘intellectual disability’ are usually underestimated as less
capable and dependent people due to societal stereotypes. Thus, they are at high risk of
adopting those cultural stereotypes and seeing themselves as not being capable of living
independently (Scior, 2016; Sheehan & Ali, 2016). On the other hand, if he/she experiences
any learning difficulties but remains unlabelled, then he/she may miss additional educa­
tional provision. Hence, there arises a dilemma of identification; to be labelled or not? (Ho,
2004).
Regarding the two horns of the dilemma of identification, it seems that we should
neither go beyond negative labels nor reduce special educational identification. This
means that identification and labelling is necessary but it would be better to adopt
more positive labels (Hayhoe, 2017). Many of the interviewed participants in Norwich’s
(2008c) research admit that various labels are not useful and that these do not describe
the individual needs. It is clear that teachers who participated in the research realised that
all children are different, and in effect it is not necessary to apply a label but it is
10 K. DEMETRIOU

nevertheless essential to deal with the abilities and the needs it implies (Terzi, 2005).
Especially regarding the English participants, Norwich (2008c) identifies three main
themes of identification: the avoidance of the language of disability, the minimal labelling
approach and finally, the promotion of more positive meaning labels.
In addition, there has been the idea that labels should not be used and that the teacher
should use self-reflection methods in order to accommodate the needs of every child
(Norwich, 2008a). Vaughn and Fuchs (2003) agree with this position and state that the
teachers ought to be observers and decide the kind of support or intervention them­
selves. However, according to the same authors, ‘teachers who view a student’s poor
performance as representing a learning disability are more likely to refer for special
education eligibility assessment than teachers who have other interpretations for low
performance’ (p.141). On the other hand, some teachers may prefer identification because
they are qualified to teach in a particular way, and do not think of coping with students of
unknown backgrounds and innovative approaches. It can be argued that these teachers
represent the intolerant community of educators, whose stance perpetuates the concept
of separated schools or the idea of withdrawals for supporting teaching; however, this is
not always the case.
At this point the interconnection of special and inclusive education should not be
overlooked. Special education has a multidisciplinary nature which entails collaboration
between a significant number of professionals from different backgrounds such as
special teachers, psychologists, sociologists, social workers, occupational therapists,
speech therapists, medical doctors and so on (Friend, 2018). The success of any inter­
ventional programme, learning and teaching practices within the classroom and indivi­
dualised support plans depend on the one hand on teachers’ knowledge, skills and
stances and on the other hand on the scientific and informative assessment of children’s
strengths and difficulties which is the outcome of the collaboration of the above-
mentioned scientists. However, Ho (2004) investigated the dilemma of identification
from the viewpoint of students, parents, teachers and other professionals and argued
that there have been many different reasons why teachers and parents may demand
that certain children be assessed for learning disabilities. It is possible that the children,
their parents or their teachers do not understand or realise the cause of the children’s
learning difficulties (Ho, 2004; Norwich, 1999). Therefore, the diagnosis of any learning
disability may help these children, their parents and their teachers to cope with the
disability more effectively (Hodge, 2016). Ho (2004, p. 87) demonstrates this by means of
the following example:

A diagnosis of dyslexia may help to show that the child’s difficulty stems from certain
neurological condition. Such diagnosis may help parents to neutralise in their own minds
their child’s learning difficulty as a matter of the medical condition and not a result of poor
parenting skills or the child’s moral failure.

Norwich (2008a) researched a similar dilemma existing as far as the curriculum is

concerned. If, for instance, a group of children is identified as having a disability and
experience the same provision as their peers, it is possible that these children will be
denied the opportunity to have the same learning experiences as their peers. On the other
hand, if they do not experience the same provision as the rest of the children, they will
possibly be victims of marginalisation and stigmatisation.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 11

It is worth mentioning that using assistive technologies can be a valuable tool for the
differentiation of teaching and promotion of a more enabling environment for hetero­
geneous learners (Kirby, 2017). Assistive technologies have the power to compensate the
difficulties of students with SEN while working in the mainstream classroom. They have
the power to decrease marginalisation as the incorporation of such technologies allows
physical access to learning, cognitive access with a multimedia approach, ongoing
assessment and development of self-esteem and thus it boosts the level of acceptance
within the mainstream settings (Rahamin, 2004). Similarly, Smeets (2005) describes the
dynamic learning environment arising through the use of educational software for class­
room differentiation with an environment with rich content and plenty of authentic
situations that connect the students with the real world, the active and sometimes
independent learning activity, the ability of collaborative learning, and this environment
that allows an adjustment of the curriculum as regards particular needs and peculiarities
of each student individually. Although differentiation of teaching seems to be crucial it is
a challenge for the teacher, especially in very heterogenous groups (Kirby, 2017). For
instance, most of the participants in Norwich’s (2008b) study agreed that a single curri­
culum is preferable, in parallel they mention problems in implementing differentiated
programs in teaching. Beyond the dilemma of commonality and individuality lies the
dilemma of identification. If identification was limited, then it would not be necessary to
create additional curricula because different nominated categories of SEN would not exist.
According to Ho (2004), some parents may disagree with using a common standardised
curriculum because it may fail to fulfil the academic needs of their children. However,
some other parents may worry that individualised educational programmes for their
children may increase the likelihood of them being excluded from mainstream participa­
tion, which may be important to children’s self-esteem (Gates, 2010; Hodge & Runswick-
Cole, 2013).
The question remains unanswered. Are the categorisation and specifically SEN labels
useful? Multi-agency teams and professionals work together to promote the wellbeing of
both children and staff (Hodkinson, 2016). However, teachers often have different expec­
tations from and attitudes towards labelled students, which are influenced by their
preconception and stance towards disability. Hart (1996) points out the difficulty teachers
face in their attempt to escape from fixed labels and identities and that their anxiety
increases because they do not feel confident enough to handle particular situations. If
a child with an SEN label attends a mainstream setting, teachers and other professionals
would prioritise that child’s learning need, without this necessarily meaning that an SEN
label ensures satisfactory provision. An SEN label automatically places a child in a territory
where negative assumptions lie (Emerald & Carpenter, 2010). These assumptions are
inevitably associated with the label and themselves. This could lead to restricted learning
opportunities for the child due to limited confidence in believing in themselves (Gates,
2010). In addition, labelling children with SEN in a mainstream setting can have a negative
impact on child’s friendship circle. Schools often organise their classrooms to fit in with
the ‘normal’ and perfect child stereotype (Emerald & Carpenter, 2010). If the labelled
child’s standardised academic grades and behaviour falls below the expectations of the
demands of the National Curriculum and school, it is argued that schools may quickly
adopt the solution of attributing a diagnostic label which will lead to additional
provisions.
12 K. DEMETRIOU

It can be argued that classification, categorisation and labelling in education could not
be regarded as problem-free approach because the classification itself, as well as the
programmes of special education provision, tend to increase the division between normal
and subnormal. This happens especially, when labels do not focus on the individual’s
abilities and needs but rather on the individual’s failures and impairments. Consequently,
the traditional categorisation not only tends to over-identify children belonging to
minorities, marginalised communities, low social-economic groups, but also promotes
low expectations for student achievement and endorses exclusion rather than inclusion
(Florian et al., 2006; Terzi, 2005; Tomlinson, 2012). In contrast, Thomas and Loxley (2001)
consider that recognition of difference does not imply potential underpinning of anti-
inclusion. It is essential to note that recognition of difference is considerably important for
the purposes of planning, choosing learning approach and differentiating teaching but
this recognition does not always originate from labelling. Connor and Valle (2015) remind
us of the feature of inalienable children’s rights by arguing that teachers should under­
stand that even if a child cannot work to the same standard as others, they still have
a right to attend mainstream classrooms and to be supported towards the same academic
level as those without a label. However, this is only half of the solution, as the teacher
must also be equipped with the skills to adjust their teaching and learning approaches in
order to meet the children’s needs as individuals so that nobody falls behind (Connor,
Valle, & Hale, 2015).
Similarly, Armstrong and Squires (2012) argue that labelling is not always as negative as
thought. The use of working labels allows educators to understand ‘problems’ and
‘difficulties’ that can be solved and aided only when awareness is raised. There is a risk
when labels do not become official. That is, educators may adopt informal or erroneous
labels due to reasons such as lack of training, awareness and bias. This adoption may lead
to exclusion and segregation which could be avoided with the use of a formal label. It is
apparent that a functional and officially accepted label can be beneficial for young
children with disabilities who are enabled to thrive in an inclusive environment in
which differences are accepted and welcomed, rather than having a less-functional and
informal label based on educators attitudes and societal stereotypes (Goodley, 2014).
Brosnan and Mills (2016) explored the effect of diagnostic labels on attitudes of college
students towards hypothetical peers who display behaviours typical of autism spectrum
disorder and found that students expressed more positive attitudes towards peers with
autism when they were aware of the label compared to no awareness of a clinical
diagnosis. In this interesting example, a known label based on diagnosis may help
students with autism reduce their level of perceived public stigma. This runs counter to
studies suggesting that labels only lead to stigmatisation.
Hence, the debate around the usefulness of SEN labels is not as straightforward as first
thought. Cooper (1996) points out that the emphasis should be placed on communica­
tion, on the necessity to make clear statements about the child’s needs and difficulties. It
is apparent that the author stresses the need for a broader classification system which
should be clearer than the generally perceived term of SEN. Regarding communication, he
explains that it is essential to introduce a common vocabulary in order to make the
communication between clients (students) and professionals easier. He argues that
‘widely accepted categories can help teachers to interpret and develop responses to
the problems they encounter’ (p.147). This implies that educators can elaborate and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 13

differentiate the learning process and that this may often entail consultation with other
professionals or the family of the child. On the other hand, if educators are not aware of
a child with any special educational need, they may not adopt specific classroom strate­
gies or elaborate the curriculum, set aims, differentiate the learning procedure, plan,
assess, monitor and develop interventional approaches.
Hence, labels do not necessarily imply segregation and stigmatisation, nor that they
derive from the medical model of disability only. Back, Keys, McMahon, and O’Neill
(2016) found that labels of SEN are not always used and interpreted in the same way,
but their use and interpretation vary depending on the situation and context rather
than merely on social values and attitudes. For example, disability-first language can
also be inclusive when the emphasis of the label is on a feature of individuals that plays
a central role in the manifestations of their identity and culture (Boer, Pijl, Post, &
Minnaert, 2013) For instance, in the UK it is common to use the term ‘disabled person’-
which is an example of identity-first language – in an attempt to place the responsibility
on society that is reluctant to accommodate the needs of an individual than the
individual himself (Martin, 2012). Back et al. (2016) suggest a closer examination of
disability language which seems to have both medical and social roots and reflects how
people with disabilities experience their lives and form identities. This is reflected in the
attempt of the World Health Organisation to interpret disability as an amalgamation of
both medical and social models by recognising the role of problematic features of
bodies and the simultaneous social and environmental factors in the way that people
with disabilities experience their lives (World Health Organization (WHO), 2016). This is
another argument indicating the non-clear-cut border within the binary disability-first
and person-first language.

Possible Solutions
The ideological dilemma cited by Norwich (1999, 2008a, 2014)) and Terzi (2005) is still with
us and we do not know for how long. On the one hand, if a child with learning difficulties
is identified as having SEN, it is likely to experience the negative consequences originating
from stigma. On the other hand, if a child is not identified as having specific needs then it
is possible that he/she will not receive required provision to cope with his/her difficulties
(Norwich, 1999). Norwich (1999) offers a solution regarding this dilemma. Extension and
reformation of the current mainstream educational system designed for the majority or
the ‘norm’ in order for it to include a greater diversity seems to be necessary. Nonetheless,
this can be the case for less severe cases. For more severe cases, for instance, those with
more complex disabilities or impairments, common provision might not be enough. In
these cases, the best way is to provide additional provision but in a way that leads to the
reduction of stigma and negative labelling.
In the same vein, Wehmeyer and Smith (2017) argue that the traditional models of
special education were based on the idea of using labels that acted as a proxy and
designated access to services and benefits for individuals who were attributed those
labels. These labels with origins from the medical model of disability grouped students
into groups of learners with common difficulties and deficits, a practice that often led to
segregation. On the contrary, social-ecological models of disability are in favour of the
design of personalised supports that are not necessarily based on a particular label. To this
14 K. DEMETRIOU

end, a new categorisation system should consider disability as a construct of a two-way

interaction between the environment and the capacities of an individual.
Therefore, the focus of the problem should not be the deficit within the individual, but
the relationship that the individual’s functioning has with the environment. Thus, the
determination of individuals’ access to services and support depends on their functioning
within that particular context. This does not necessarily imply the abandonment of the
idea of using labels, but it may suggest the replacement of labels that promote segrega­
tion towards labels and language that highlight the strengths of individuals to succeed in
inclusive learning environments rather than their deficits. Strength-based approaches
move the focus from deficits in functioning to understanding the demands and charac­
teristics of the enabling, age-appropriate and inclusive environment in which everyone
with or without disability is welcome (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Schalock, & Thompson, 2017).
In this approach, the needed support is built on the student’s strengths along with the
demands of the inclusive environment in a way that maximises personal growth and
participation that in turn improve human functioning and personal outcomes. It focuses
on personal development, the use of individualised support strategies and the evaluation
of personal outcomes by building on strengths and capabilities that all individuals have
and enables them to grow, develop, and flourish through new opportunities (Reinders &
Schalock, 2014). Of course, this venture requires a fundamental change of educational
practices with significant implications for restructuring the organisation and delivery of
educational services.
In parallel, Hastings and Remington (1993) propose a pioneering triple approach to
choosing an identification or a label. Firstly, they suggest asking persons with disabilities
to choose which label they prefer. Secondly, it is appropriate to investigate what
responses follow each label in different groups and societies. The last step is to specify
the chosen label with a specific denotation such as an adjective which describes the
extent of difficulty. However, this approach is difficult to implement in practice and maybe
controversial and ambiguous. In addition, Hart (1996) suggests an interesting five-step
strategy she employed to interpret, support, monitor and enhance a child’s difficulties
without using any label. Firstly, she proposes making connections between a child’s
characteristics and the classroom’s learning environment features. Then, she makes
comparisons between norms and assumptions that allow us to perceive child’s response
as problematic. In the third step, we try to detect the meaning and purpose of the child’s
response from its perspective. Afterwards, Hart (1996) examines the influence of teacher’s
feelings on the interpretation. The last step involves the likelihood of making uncertain
judgements, thus additional steps could be followed to acquire further resources. This
way of thinking corresponds with teachers’ aspiration to achieve genuinely child-centred
teaching.
The demanding curriculum increases the amount of stress that teachers experience to
make sure that every learner in their settings meets the requirements of the curriculum
(Kirby, 2017). However, Bergmann and Sams (2012) argue that if emphasis was given on
teachers’ training in order for them to know how to design their teaching based on the
concept of Universal Design for Learning, their teaching style would be adapted to suit
the needs of every child in the setting, while effective and quality teaching would reach
every child with no need of labels. This can be achieved when the needs of each individual
child are put first, an approach which has the power to enhance effective learning and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 15

promote good quality teaching (Barber & Graham, 2012). This aligns with Kirby (2017) who
suggests individualised teaching for all students regardless of an SEN label. For this to
succeed, teachers must have access to scientifically based instructional methods and be
trained and well prepared to choose suitable teaching methods and interventions accord­
ing to the needs of each learner in their settings. Teachers must also be trained to
effectively monitor students’ progress that in turn will facilitate their instructional deci­
sion-making, differentiation and interventions.
However, this approach cannot easily be put into practice due to lack of funding and
resources (Goodley, 2014) and limited time or due to the attitudinal barriers society puts
up in relation to SEN labelled children in mainstream education. In order to cope with this,
Peña, Stapleton, and Schaffer (2016) suggest educators’ training in how to interpret
disability labels through the intersectional practice and the simultaneous resistance to
practices and language that emphasise individual deficiency and impairment. According
to this approach, disability is perceived as a set of complex lived experiences by indivi­
duals with SEN that should be understood and problemitised as a whole rather than as an
isolated oppressing element of one’s identity. Potential ignorance of the intersectional
nature of disability by educators entails risks of limited understanding of the way in which
students with SEN experience their lives, the perpetuation of societal stereotypes around
disability and thus the insufficient meeting of students’ needs in their settings.
Terzi (2005) maintains that it is necessary to replace the dilemma of difference with the
capability approach. This implies that we have to reconceptualise learning difficulties and
take into account concepts of functioning as well as the capability of each child and
rethink disability and learning difficulties in the light of these concepts. Hence, the
educational system will move away from the medical model focusing on disability and
will adopt the social model, which focuses on the limitations imposed by society in order
to cope with them.
Finally, Hayhoe (2017) argues that it would be wiser to go back and reflect on the
definition of disability itself. This could lead to a new, universal classification system which
is based on supporting ability in tasks and not disability as identity and the idea of
allowing people with disabilities to be involved in decisions related to definitions of
their own multiple identities, with disability being one of these identities (Peña et al.,
2016). Universal design approach may have the solution to this problem. The adaptation
of flexible policies, spaces, learning environments, educational material and social settings
will allow individuals for whom support could be arranged in mainstream settings to
define their own identity based on the support they need at a particular time.

The Way Forward

As we have seen, the categorisation of SEN is one of the most controversial issues in
special education. The language and vocabulary formed by the cultural mentality have
the power to define policies. Therefore, the terminology frequently used in special
education must be understood as a reflection of social conditioning and also as
a reflection of our attitudes towards disability (Halder et al., 2017). However, it may be
the opposite. That is to say, the policy has the power to create and determine the
language which in turn will affect the cultural mentality (Fiala-Butora & Stein, 2016).
Therefore, if the adoption of legislation concerning the education of people with SEN is
16 K. DEMETRIOU

carried out without the involvement of those who are affected directly, vocabulary for the
categorisation of SEN may be adopted that will serve not necessarily the interests of
people with SEN but mainly the economic interests of the state. This potentially leads to
an SEN categorisation dichotomy: (1) the pedagogically based categories of special needs
and (2) the policy-informed categories of special needs. The former refers to categories or
labels that are ‘useful’ for educators and inform the teaching practice, whereas the latter
refers to policies related to services and provisions and are useful for policymakers.
However, if we accept Lewis and Norwich’s (2005) argument that SEN categories have
limited usefulness for teachers, students, parents and other educational supporters, it
means that such categories have limited functionality in educational settings and thus
they are not necessary.
In accordance with this, Blum and Bakken (2010) argue that such labels put the
emphasis on children’s learning difficulties rather than on their strengths and individual­
ity. However, other research – as discussed in previous section – points out that labels may
put the emphasis on both children’s strengths and learning difficulties at the same time
through the employment of strategies such as differentiation of teaching and the uni­
versal design. By these means, teachers plan, design and adopt such teaching strategies
that are informed by the characteristics of their children deriving from the label but also
through further information based on teacher’s observations in the classroom. This works
towards the de-demonisation of SEN labels and means that labels can be useful as they do
not only unveil children’s difficulties but also their strengths and individual differences.
Thus, teachers can use the information that derives from the label and further assess their
students in order to determine their strengths and special educational needs. They can
therefore adjust and differentiate their teaching, by means of planning and monitoring in
order to accommodate their students’ needs by critically interpreting the connotations
and informativity of the label but nor merely relying on it.
Hodge (2016) also suggests the adoption of a critical stance towards labels and
encourages educators to consider labels as information carriers that should not be
refused at first. Not all labels lead to stigmatisation anyway. There are labels that are
used for a good cause such as enabling students to access additional support, services
and resources while some other labels may confine life opportunities (Goodley &
Runswick-Cole, 2012). Children come to school with labels attached to them and the
refusal to use those labels without considering the information they carry with them is like
dealing with an empty page. Therefore, the idea is to view a label as a starting point that
will enable teachers to make use of the information of assessment and diagnosis and then
adopt a child-centred approach based on children’s needs in collaboration with parents
and other professionals. This critical engagement with labels and a kind of resistance does
not imply a total rejection of labels. As Hodge (2016) characteristically says, labels should
be kept in locked drawers, so the educators can use them when necessary and then return
them to their special store place.
In an ideal educational system, categories of disability would have no place, because
this system would provide fair learning opportunities for all and special benefits would be
the result of effective differentiation of teaching with the use of unrestricted tools and
means. This means that the learning process of inclusive settings will be such that it will
become directly accessible to all students who will be recognised as unique learners
unaccompanied by any label. This educational system constitutes the ultimate target of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 17

contemporary inclusive education; although it sounds utopian at least for now. One of the
reasons is the insistence on students’ division into ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’. According to
Söder (1989), ‘policies intended to be non-labelling are actually attaching a new meaning
to disability, a meaning that tends to render disability invisible’ (p. 117). This agrees with
what many activists argue that the choice ‘not to label’ someone as disabled is an attempt
to reject the social model of disability (Shakespeare & Watson, 2002 cited in Anderson &
Bigby, 2016). Thus, the suggestion to abolish the classification system of SEN would be
foolhardy because first, we cannot know in fact that things would improve without
labelling, while on the other hand, there would be no systematic control of the allocation
of services and provisions.
Hence, it would be pointless to avoid a label for the sake of a sociologically directed
viewpoint (Boyle, 2014) when we know that the non-existence of a label will prevent any
access to additional provisions, facilities and resources. Nonetheless, Lauchlan and Boyle
(2007) suggest that ‘if the use of the label does not lead to improved, or more appropriate
and targeted educational intervention, then one may legitimately question its value’ (p.
37). The use of labels should guarantee children’s and subsequent adults’ success and not
the perpetuation of their stigmatisation. Otherwise their validity can be put under ques­
tion. Thus, if we conclude that the policy-informed categorisation of SEN is ultimately
necessary and that we will probably never manage to get rid of it, the question shifts to
whether these categories can be made more functional, beneficial, reliable and valid
rather than dysfunctional and detrimental for the children. The answer lies in the voca­
bulary that is being used which should be free of norms and stereotypes and words or
phrases that lead to stigma, low self-esteem and exclusion. Although it is obvious that we
partly managed to get away from the ‘strong language’ this does not mean that we have
eliminated traces of stigmatisation and exclusion. Thus, the ideal solution would be the
replacement of the hard language of labelling and traditional categorisation in order to
enhance children’s learning, since each child has unique characteristics, strengths and
needs. However, this cannot easily be put into practice.
Attempts have been recorded to move away from labelling or change the way of
support, by reconceptualising SEN and by providing cross-categorical programmes of
provision. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the mere existence of particular
legislation for special education, which introduces SEN categories and defines the appro­
priate provision and support of labelled children, reflects the persistence of our societies
to preserve an exclusion policy from common decisions. The Civil Rights Movement calls
for action towards community’s equality and has made significant progress (Muster,
2017). A concrete example of the activism of the movement is the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. According to this convention, it
should be considered that persons with SEN should have the opportunity to be actively
involved in decision-making processes about policies and programmes, including those
directly concerning them (United Nations General Assembly, 2007, preamble). Similarly,
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child highlight the need to respect all
children’s views and opinions and their freedom of expression. (United Nations, 1989).
But does this happen in the case of SEN labels? To what extent have adults involved
children with any kind of SEN in any decision-making process in regard to SEN categories
and labels so far? The answer is ‘not often as they should have done’ (Halder et al., 2017).
Although we acknowledge the importance of the ratification of both conventions while
18 K. DEMETRIOU

we pretend to be quite sensitive in terms of their implementation, we remain silent when

the time comes to make decisions on behalf of minority groups such as people with
disability, especially young children with special educational needs. Gibson (2006) refers
to the culture of silence which continues to exist as one of the most crucial barriers in the
area of SEN. Consequently, an open dialogue is required between not only the name
givers such as the educators, the parents, the professionals, the legislatures, the policy­
makers and other government officers but also with the labelled people per se. This
implies that individuals with disability could participate and be involved in a dialogue in
order to choose, approve or disprove a functional label (Dunn & Andrews, 2015). This
open dialogue should be centred on four main themes:
(1) How inclusion and inclusive practices are defined in educational contexts – if
inclusion is much more than physical access, then how the cultivation of acceptance of
difference can promote a move to more functional and neutral SEN labels;
(2) What vocabulary is free of norms and stereotypes and words or phrases that lead to
stigma, functional and valid in educational contexts and the same time is acceptable by
those who are labelled;
(3) How disability itself is defined in educational contexts and what lessons can be
learnt from the Universal Design approach in terms of adapting flexible policies, learning
environments and educational material that will allow individuals for whom support
could be arranged in mainstream settings to define their own identity based on the
aids they need at a given time; and
(4) How a new moral framework based on the human rights approach can promote
self-determination and self-advocacy of disabled children in order to guarantee that they
avail themselves of the rights that are described in the UN conventions.
In order to move away from the culture of silence we should adopt a language that does
not deprive any student of the fundamental right and opportunity of successful learning
and unlabelled life. We are obliged to preserve the fundamental rights of children; not
only their rights related to protection and provision, but also their right to participation.
Only then will the children with SEN gain their own voice.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Kyriakos Demetriou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1087-1964

References
Anderson, S., & Bigby, C. (2016). Empowering people with intellectual disabilities to challenge
stigma. In K. Scior & S. Werner (Eds.), Intellectual disability and stigma: Stepping out from the
margins (pp. 165–178). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Armstrong, D., & Squires, G. (2012). Contemporary issues in special educational needs: Considering the
whole child. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 19

Back, L. T., Keys, C. B., McMahon, S. D., & O’Neill, K. (2016). How we label students with disabilities:
A framework of language use in an urban school district in the United States. Disability Studies
Quarterly, 36(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v36i4.4387
Barber, M., & Graham, D. (2012). Sense, nonsense and the national curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Barton, L. (Ed.). (1987). The politics of special educational needs. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day.
Colorado: International Society for Technology in Education.
Beveridge, S. (1999). Special educational needs in schools (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Blum, C., & Bakken, J. P. (2010). Labeling of students with disabilities: Unwanted and not needed. In
F. E. Obiakor, J. P. Bakken, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.) Current issues and trends in special education:
Identification, assessment and instruction (pp. 115–125). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., Post, W., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Peer acceptance and friendships of students with
disabilities in general education: The role of child, peer, and classroom variables. Social
Development, 22(4), 831–844.
Boyle, C. (2014). Labelling in special education. Where do the benefits lie? In A. Holliman (Ed.), The
Routledge international companion to educational psychology (pp. 213–221). London: Routledge.
Brosnan, M., & Mills, E. (2016). The effect of diagnostic labels on the affective responses of college
students towards peers with ‘Asperger’s Syndrome’ and ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder’. Autism, 20
(4), 388–394.
Burke, P. J., & Ruedel, K. (2008). Disability classification, categorisation in education: A US perspec­
tive. In L. Florian & M. J. McLaughlin (Eds.), Disability classification in education (pp. 68–76).
California: Corwin Press.
Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. W. (2015). A socio-cultural reframing of science and dis/ability in education:
Past problems, current concerns and future possibilities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10
(4), 1103–1120.
Connor, D. J., Valle, J. W., & Hale, C. (2015). Practicing disability studies in education: Acting towards
social change. New York: Peter Lang Publications.
Cooper, P. (1996). Giving it a name: The Value of descriptive categories in educational approaches to
emotional and behavioural difficulties. Support for Learning, 11 (4), 146–150.
Corbett, J. (1996). Bad-mouthing: The Language of SEN. London: The Falmer Press.
Darling, R. B. (2013). Disability and identity: Negotiating self in a changing society. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Department for Education (DfE) (1993). Education Law 1993. London: DfE.
Department of Education (DfE) (2010). Children and Families Act. London: HMSO.
Department of Education (DfE). (2011). Teachers’ standards. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/teachers-standards. London: Stationary Offices
Department of Education (DfE) (2014). Children and Families Act. London: HMSO.
Department of Education (DfE). (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 To
25 years. Crown. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf
Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) (1997, October 22). Excellence for all children.
Green paper. London: HMSO.
Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998). Meeting special educational needs:
A programme of action. London: HMSO.
Department of Education and Science (DES) (1978). Warnock committee report. London: HMSO
Department of Education and Science (DES) (1981). Education act 1981. London: HMSO
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2001). Special educational needs code of practice.
London: HMSO.
Ditchman, N., Kosyluk, K., & Lee, E. (2016). How stigma affects the lives of people with intellectual
disabilities: An overview. In K. Scior & S. Werner (Eds.), Intellectual disability and stigma: Stepping
out from the margins (pp. 31–48). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2003). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In T. F. Heatherton,
M. R. Helb, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Stigma (pp. 1–28). New York: Guilford Press.
20 K. DEMETRIOU

Draper, E. A. (2018). Navigating the labels: Appropriate terminology for students with disabilities.
General Music Today, 32(1), 30–32.
Dunn, D. S., & Andrews, E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psycholo­
gists’ cultural competence using disability language. American Psychologist, 70(3), 255–264.
Emerald, E., & Carpenter, L. (2010). ADHD, mothers and the politics of school recognition. In
L. Graham (ed.) (De)Constructing ADHD (pp. 99–118). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Fiala-Butora, J., & Stein, M. A. (2016). The law as a source of stigma or empowerment: Legal capacity
and persons with intellectual disabilities. In K. Scior & S. Werner (Eds.), Intellectual disability and
stigma: Stepping out from the margins (pp. 195–208). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Florian, L., Hollenweger, J., Simeonsson, R. J., Wedell, K., Riddell, S., Terzi, L., & Holland, A. (2006).
Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities: Part I. Issues in the
classification of children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40, (1), 36–45.
Florian, L., & McLaughlin, M. J. (Eds.) (2008). Disability classification in education. California: Corwin
Press.
Friend, M. P. (2018). Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals (5th Ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
Gates, J. (2010). Children with gifts and talents: Looking beyond traditional labels. Roeper Review, 32
(3), 200–206.
Gibson, S. (2006). Beyond a “culture of silence”: Inclusive education and the liberation of “voice”.
Disability & Society, 21 (4), 315–329.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/abilty studies – Theorising disablism and ableism. New York: Routledge.
Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2012). Reading Rosie: The postmodern disabled child. Educational
and Child Psychology 29(2), 53–66.
Halder, S., Assaf, L. C., & Keeffe, M. (2017). Disability and inclusion: Current challenges. In S. Halder &
L. C. Assaf (Eds.), Inclusion, disability and culture: An ethnographic perspective traversing abilities
and challenges (pp. 1–14). Cham: Springer.
Hart, S. (1996). Beyond SEN: Enhancing children’s learning through innovative thinking. London: Paul
Chapman.
Hastings, R., & Remington, B. (1993). Connotations of labels for mental handicap and challenging
behaviour: A review and research evaluation. Mental Handicap Research, 6, (3), 237–249.
Hayhoe, S. (2017). When gucci make hearing aids, i’ll be deaf: Sensory impairment in later life and
a need to define it according to identity. In S. Halder & L. C. Assaf (Eds.), Inclusion, disability and
culture: An ethnographic perspective traversing abilities and challenges (pp. 77–88). Cham: Springer.
HMSO (His Majesty’s Stationery Office). (1908). Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and
Control of the Feebleminded. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/reportroyalcomm00
mindgoog/page/n15
Ho, A. (2004). To be Labeled, or not to be Labeled: That is the question. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 32, 86–92.
Hodge, N. (2016). Schools without labels. In K. Runswick-Cole, R. Mallett, & S. Timimi (Eds.), Re-
thinking autism: Diagnosis, identity and equality (pp. 185–203). London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Hodge, N., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2013). ‘They never pass me the ball’: Exposing ableism through
leisure experiences of disabled children, young people and their families. Children’s Geographies,
11(3) 311–325.
Hodkinson, A. (2010). Inclusive and special education in the English educational system: Historical
perspectives, recent developments and future challenges. British Journal of Special Education. 37
(2), 61–67.
Hodkinson, A. (2012). Illusionary Inclusion – What went wrong with New Labour’s landmark educa­
tion policy? British Journal of Special Educational Needs. 39(1) 4–8.
Hodkinson, A. (2016). Key issues in special educational needs and inclusion, 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Hoyle, P. (2017). Integrated categories for integrated care - The importance of patient centred
categories. International Journal of Integrated Care, 17(3), A16.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 21

Jodrell, D. (2010). Social-identity and self-efficacy concern for disability labels. Psychology Teaching
Review 16(2), 111–121.
Johnstone, C. J., Limaye, S., & Kayama, M. (2017). Disability, culture, and identity in India and USA. In
S. Halder & L. C. Assaf (Eds.), Inclusion, disability and culture: An ethnographic perspective traversing
abilities and challenges (pp. 15–30). Cham: Springer.
Kelly, N., & Norwich, B. (2004). Pupils’ perceptions of self and of labels: Moderate learning difficulties
in mainstream and special schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 411–435.
Kirby, M. (2017). Implicit assumptions in special education policy: Promoting full inclusion for
students with learning disabilities. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(2), 175–191.
Kurth, J., Marks, S., & Bartz, J. (2016). Educating Students in Inclusive Classrooms. In M. L. Wehmeyer
& K. A. Shogren (Eds.) Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with intellectual
disability (pp. 274–295). London: Routledge.
Lauchlan, F., & Boyle, C. (2007). Is the use of labels in special education helpful? Support For Learning,
22(1), 36–42.
Lewis, A., & Crisp, R. J. (2004). Measuring social identity in the professional context of provision for
pupils with SEN. School Psychology International, 25, (4), 404–421.
Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (2005). Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for inclusion.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Mallett, R., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Approaching disability- critical issues and perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Martin, N. (2012). Disability identity–disability pride. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher
Education, 16(1), 14–18.
Mayer, F. A. (2017). From stigma to empowermenT – A journey to reframe disability. In S. Halder &
L. C. Assaf (Eds.), Inclusion, disability and culture: An ethnographic perspective traversing abilities
and challenges (pp. 97–106). Cham: Springer.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice.
Wakefield, MA: Center for Applied Special Technology.
Muncey, J., & Palmer, C. (1995). Dimensions of SEN: A non-categorical approach to special educa­
tional needs. British Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 125–128.
Muster, C. (2017). There is No “Dis” in our abilities: Acknowledging the experience of the differently-
abled community. In S. Halder & L. C. Assaf (Eds.), Inclusion, disability and culture: An ethnographic
perspective traversing abilities and challenges (pp. 107–133). Cham: Springer.
Norwich, B. (1999). The connotation of special education labels for professional in the field. British
Journal of Special Education, 26, (4), 179–183.
Norwich, B. (2007). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: International perspectives and
future directions. London: Routledge.
Norwich, B. (2008a). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability. International perspectives and
future directions. London: Routledge
Norwich, B. (2008b). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: International perspectives on
placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 287–304.
Norwich, B. (2008c). Perspectives and purposes of disability classification systems: Implications for
teachers and curriculum and pedagogy. In L. Florian & M. McClaughlin (Eds.), Classification in
special education (pp. 131–149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Norwich, B. (2014). Categories of special educational needs. In L. Florian (ed.) Handbook of special
education (2nd ed.) (pp.55–71). London: Sage Publications.
Norwich, B., & Lewis, A. (2001). Mapping a pedagogy for special educational needs. British
Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 313–331.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2000). SEN education: Statistics
and indicators. Paris: OECD.
Peña, E. V., Stapleton, L. D., & Schaffer, L. M. (2016). Critical perspectives on disability identity. New
Directions for Student Services, 154, 85–96.
Phtiaka, H. (2008). Educating the other: A journey in Cyprus time and space. In L. Barton &
F. Armstrrong (Eds.), Policy, experience and change: Cross-cultural reflections on inclusive education
(Vol.4, pp. 147–161). Dordrecht: Springer.
22 K. DEMETRIOU

Pritchard, G., & Brodie, K. (2015). A family’s perspective on special educational needs and inclu­
sion. In K. Brodie & K. Savage (Eds.) Inclusion and early years practice (pp. 75–92). Oxon:
Routledge.
Rahamin, L. (2004). From integration to inclusion: Using ICT to support learners with special
educational needs in the ordinary classroom. In L. Florian & J. Hegarty (Eds.) ICT and special
educational needs: A tool for inclusion (pp. 35–45). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Reinders, H. S., & Schalock, R. L. (2014). How organizations can enhance the quality of life of their
clients and assess their results: The concept of QOL enhancement. American Journal on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119(4), 291–302.
Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). Models of disability: A brief overview. HTS Teologiese Studies/
Theological Studies, 74(1), 1–18.
Roth, D., Barak, D., & Peretz, H. (2016). How stigma affects us: The voice of self-advocates. In K. Scior &
S. Werner (Eds.), Intellectual disability and stigma: Stepping out from the margins (pp. 49–60).
London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Scior, K. (2016). Toward understanding intellectual disability stigma: Introduction. In K. Scior &
S. Werner (Eds.), Intellectual disability and stigma: Stepping out from the margins (pp. 3–14).
London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Sheehan, R., & Ali, A. (2016). Self-stigma in people with intellectual disabilities. In K. Scior & S. Werner
(Eds.), Intellectual disability and stigma: Stepping out from the margins (pp. 91–110). London:
Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Schalock, R. L., & Thompson, J. R. (2017). Reframing educational
supports for students with intellectual disability through strengths-based approaches. In M. L.
Wehmeyer & K. A. Shogren (Eds.), Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with
intellectual disabilities (pp. 17–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
Slee, R. (2012). How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political
predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education. 26(2),475–484.
Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education?
Computers & Education, 44(3), 343–355.
Söder, M. (1989). Disability as a social construct: The labelling approach revisited. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 4(2), 117–129.
Terzi, L. (2005). Beyond the dilemma of difference: The capability approach to disability and special
educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39 (3), 443–459.
Test, D. W., Spooner, F., Holzberg, D., Robertson, C., Davis, L. L., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A.
(2016). Planning for other educational needs and community-based instruction. In M. L. Wehmeyer
& K. A. Shogren (Eds.) Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with
intellectual disability (pp. 130–150). Oxon: Routledge.
Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Tobbell, J., & Lawthom, R. (2005). Dispensing with labels: Enabling children and professionals to
share a community of practice. Educational and Child Psychology, 22(3), 89–97.
Tomlinson, S. (2012). A sociology of special education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
United Nations. (1989). United Nations convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: Author.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (1994). The salamanca
statement and framework for action on special needs education. Available at: www.unesco.org/
education/pdf/SALAMANCA_E.PDF
United Nations General Assembly. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:
resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106. Retrieved from:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruc­
tion: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18 (3),
137–146.
Vignoles, A. (2015). Special educational needs. In R. Cassen, S. McNally, & A. Vignoles (Eds.). Making
a difference in education: What the evidence says, pp. 135–154. London: Routledge
Wedell, K. (2003). What’s in the label? British Journal of Special Education, 30 (2), 107.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 23

Wedell, K. (2008). Evolving Dilemmas about Categorisation. In L. Florian & M. J. McLaughlin (Eds.),
Disability classification in education (pp. 47–64). California: Corwin Press.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Smith, J. D. (2017). Historical understandings of intellectual disability and the
emergence of special education. In M. L. Wehmeyer & K. A. Shogren (Eds.), Handbook of research-
based practices for educating students with intellectual disabilities (pp. 3–16). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Wood, K. (2004). International perspectives: The USA and the pacific Rim. ‘Self-assessment of
relationships with peers in children with intellectual disability’. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research. 45(3),202–211.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Disabilities. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/topics/
disabilities/en

View publication stats