Carol Rodrigues

4284949

IS LABELLING AN ASSET OR A LIABILITY FOR A CHILD WITH

DYSLEXIA?

Course: MA Special and Inclusion Education

XX4920: Debating Special and Inclusive Education

Marking tutor:Max Biddulph

Word count:6,438

1|Page
 Table of Content

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….……3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Debating the concerns

1. Teacher Attitudes and expectations

1.1 Effect on self-esteem and achievement…………………………………………………………..….6

2. Parental views and concerns with labels

2.1 Labels shift the blame from parents to tangible medical opinion……………………….9

2.2 Parental concerns: limited access to the opportunities and bullying…………………11

3. Is the child receiving support?...............................................................13

3.1 Misdiagnosis: Minimal support and exclusion……………………………………………………..14

4. Self-esteem of a child- being labelled Dyslexic…………………………………………….16

Implications

Teacher Bias- Practical Implementation…………………………………………………………………….18

Acknowledge labels as complex phenomenon……………………………………………………………19

Alternative to Medical Model……………………………………………………………………………………….20

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21

Reference……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22

2|Page
 IS LABELLING AN ASSET OR LIABILITY FOR A CHILD WITH DYSLEXIA?

ABSTRACT

The issues surrounding labelling have been a constant struggle to weigh up the benefits and
downside of it. It has been contended that having the label of special needs gives an
individual the support they need academically but, it could also have a negative impact such
as; teachers being biased, label leading to exclusion and could also hamper the individuals
self-esteem if the label is being used inappropriately by society. The present assignment will
explore the labels through the perspectives of the prominent people in the child’s life:
parents, teachers and the self. In each context the benefits and drawbacks are considered
supported by literature. The implication for practice are deliberated to understand how
labelling will be incorporated in my professional practice. In conclusion, a summary of the
assignment along with the challenges and my views will be explained in detail.

Keywords: labels, teacher bias, self-esteem, support, dyslexia.

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Technology has made information accessible in numerous forms, the internet today allows
us to look up symptoms, causes and reasons for any disease or disorder at the click of a
button and hence, giving a standard definition of labelling would be an apt way to begin.
Labelling as defined by the Oxford Dictionary states that –“A classifying phrase or name
applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or
restrictive”(Dictionary,1989). The definition in itself suggests that it could be restrictive.
McMahon (2012),in his article states labelling is accompanied by the negative aspect of
stigma and stereotyping ( McMahon,2012) it equally effects the individuals self-esteem as
well as the expectations teachers, parents and other members of society have from the
individual (Farrell,2010,p.76).

Educationalists strongly believe that labelling children can lead to a negative impact on the
child, the central focus being that, labelling leads to stigma .The spastic society in Britain
have renamed it as Scope due to the negative interpretation to the word ‘spastic’. This was
a legally assigned medical term to define the movement difficulties faced by individuals who
were diagnosed with cerebral palsy, and due to the improper use of the term was seen as a
negative interpretation (Riddick, 2000,).

On the contrary, labelling may not be the only reason leading to stigma as a difference in
appearance and movement in itself can lead to stigmatization without a label. Christy
Brown(1954) in his autobiography illustrates his brush with stigmatization:

“I hid my face whenever anybody strange passed me be, but I couldn’t help seeing
how they’d glance at my face and then down at my hands, nodding their heads
significantly to whoever was with them as they went up the road, glancing back at
me till they passed out of sight.” (Riddick, 2000.p654).?”

even though he was not given a label of cerebral palsy, he further notes that neither did the
on lookers, but the difference in appearance lead to being negatively viewed (Riddick,2000).

Dyslexia affects 1 in 10 or 20 individuals in the UK, but what seems to be on the rise is the
misdiagnosis or overgeneralization of a child just based on difficulty to read or write. In this
day and age the internet allows us to access symptoms of everything including dyslexia, this
trend is noted all over the world, rather than being helpful for the child it can lead to
exclusion and could be detrimental to the child’s well-being (Friend and Bursuck, 2002).

4|Page
Labelling has been noted as having positive outcomes as well, it allows an individual to
access the personalized support that they require (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1983;Riddick,
2000). It enables other children in the class to accept this individual (Lauchlan & Boyle,
2007). Differing these views it has also been noted that the label could lead to exclusion as
the peers could easily justify their actions based on the fact that the label becomes the
individual’s identity and hence allows their peers to segregate themselves from those
labelled (Taylor et al., 2010).

The topic of labelling has struck me on a personal as well as a professional note, my career
choice is based on how I was labelled during my school years and the impact it had on my
academic and social sphere. Professionally, working in a school based setting, my
colleagues labelled children with ADHD, ADD and Dyslexia without having a formal diagnosis
or an assessment, just based on the behaviour the child exhibited. Labelling led to exclusion
rather than support being provided or even recommending them for a diagnosis.

I believe that every individual is different, we all excel on different aspects of life. Labelling
denies an individual of that possibility by undermining their capabilities and minimizing their
opportunities. I have decided to examine the issue of labelling a child dyslexic in order to
assess if there is a benefit to labelling and if so to implement those in an appropriate
manner in the future.

This assignments will analyse the debate if labelling a child with dyslexia is an asset or a
liability? .The views of parents, teachers and impact on self- esteem of the individual. In
each context the benefits and drawbacks are considered supported by literature. The
implication for practice are considered to understand how labelling will be incorporated in
my professional practice. In conclusion, a summary of the assignment and if the debate
challenged or validated my views.

Any piece writing links into the history of the individual or the significant others in their lives
this leads to disclosing or discussing issues in regards to a specific topic (Etherington, 2007;
Trahar, 2009) this would be a breech in ethics hence, the individuals in the assignment have
been given pseudonyms in order to maintain anonymity and to maintain moral and ethical
standards.

5|Page
 Debating the concerns

1. Teacher attitudes and expectations

1.1Effect on self-esteem and achievement

Lawrence(1996), stated that “one of the most exciting discoveries in educational psychology
in recent times has been the findings that people’s level of achievement are influenced by
how they feel about themselves”(p.11).

Our families are our immediate significant others but, as we enter school our teachers and
peers are influential in shaping us. We begin viewing ourselves based on their perception of
us, if this image remains consistent it enables the child to develop a sense of “self”. In a
study conducted by Jonathan Glazzard (2010), results indicated that the participants of the
study had expressed conflicting views about their teachers, a majority of the response was
that teachers have been biased and have negatively impacted the child’s self-esteem and
this is concurrent with previous researchers (Humphrey,2003, Humphrey and Mullins,2002)
On the contrary, participants were able to ascertain teachers who were influential in shaping
their self- esteem positively, on further elaboration the common factor was: the support
provided by the teachers that enabled a positive change. Support was interpreted in
different manners by different children, some emphasized the importance of teachers who
had adapted the class practice to enable easy access for the said child, and some stressed
the importance of the teachers understanding of their requirements. The most significant
factor was the development of an effective relationships between the teacher and student in
order for them to be able to discuss or talk to someone ( Glazzard,2010).

As a teacher we tend to label almost all the children present in a class but some of these
labels have a positive attribute, the label dyslexic on the other hand, usually diminishes the
teacher’s expectation of the individual and hence leading to lowered achievement (Hornstra
et.al., 2010). It has also been noted that the expectation of a teacher can be termed as
judgment, Research conducted by Jussim and Harber (2005) on Teachers judgment of a
child in regards to their academic abilities has established results which indicate small but
significant effect on the achievement of students (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1999).

A teachers belief about the core of a child’s difficulty may influence the manner in which
they conduct their professional responsibility towards a specific groups of children (Jordan
& Stanovich, 2003).Teachers may make assumptions based on the label and in turn effect
the level of engagement in inclusive education (Hornstra et.al, 2010).

6|Page
Research conducted in the field of literacy employing a critical interpretivist frame has
established that labels such as dyslexic considerably lower the expectations and
opportunities accessible to individuals in order to gain literacy and to improve these skills
with practice (Kliewer et al., 2006).

Similar findings were reported by Rapley (2004), the methodology of the study was
discursive psychology. The study looked at the process of limited opportunities for
individuals who were labelled through interviews conducted with staff and professionals.
This predisposition to restrain the access of individuals due to expectations which are
shaped due to the minimal expectations associated with the label can be one of the
significant concern associated with diagnostic labelling.

The common error in judgment would be basing educational decisions on a child’s labelled
disability rather than a child’s personality and characteristics. In order to comprehend a
child’s needs we need to be aware of their surroundings and their individual identity. In a
study conducted by Jamieson et.al in 1977, the results indicated that a child’s inability is
just a minor element in the constellation of individual and environmental factors that result
in the success or failure at school. Warnock (2005) in her paper indicated that the use of
labelling may not work with all children who have been identified as special needs
individuals even. This is often the case when, teachers with the best of interest begin to
assist the child the methods used are often misguided and ineffective. Research findings in
regards to labelling has deduced that, focusing on the intrinsic deficits leads to neglecting
environmental factors that could have caused or aggravated the difficulties (Dudley-Marling
,2004). As discussed by Brechin (1999), “If the whole problem, by definition, lies with the
individual [via a label], then our understandings and interventions start and stop with the
individual” (p. 1).

Moreover, Present-day schooling has overstated the signs of some disabilities such as
dyslexia (Rice & Brooks, 2004), this implies that the label does not hold the value it did
rather it is being overused. In regards to the interventions, bias was noted as interventions
provided were no different than those administered to children with general reading
difficulties (Elliott, 2005).

Griffiths(2004), in her research established that some teachers have the belief that
particular categories of labelling have undesirable results on students. These teachers
disregard the label of dyslexia as they believe that it would negatively impact the child
making them feel ashamed or it could be a pretence used by the child to avoid work.
(Griffiths, 2004).

7|Page
In my professional experience I have noticed that children thrive on the praises of teachers
to establish a sense of self and attain a higher level of achievement. The simple small things
such as greeting them with a smile, asking them how their day has been so far, giving
positive feedback shows the student that they matter to the teacher. Forming a positive
relationship with a child enables them to understand that they would be able to turn to the
teacher in case they go through any difficulties.

The relationship between students and teachers are significant in building a healthy school
environment and nurturing student’s mental wellbeing (Hornby & Atkinson, 2003). The
literature indicates that the teacher- student relationship is significant in excluding students
(Pomeroy, 2000) and students who struggle to keep up with the curriculum . The teacher is
considered as an authoritative figure and that leads to an uneven distribution of power. A
teacher can bring about change by using this authority to establish a positive behaviour in a
child rather than exercising power over others. The misconception is that an ‘effective’
teacher has control over their students but, research has shown otherwise that an ‘effective’
teacher provides the student with the support to exercise self-control and strongly guides
the child in believing in their abilities (Roffey, 2011).

8|Page
2. PARENTAL VIEW AND CONCERNS WITH LABELS

2.1. Labels shift the blame from parents to tangible medical opinion.

Having a child who is frequently in trouble at school usually brings the parents in contact
with school authorities and more often than not the parents are blamed in terms of
parenting. Teachers usually place the blame on the parents for a child’s behavior and low
academic achievements (Runswick-Cole, 2007). Parents are the easiest targets to blame as
they are the child’s first point of contact and consequently teachers find the parenting
flawed. I have noted in my professional settings that teachers blame parents as it is easier
to find faults in the parents rather than our methods in teaching.

A study conducted by Broomhead (2013), interviewed teachers and parents in respects to

their experience placing the label and being labelled respectively, this study indicated that
teachers would blame parents for children’s misbehaviour in school but this study was
conducted mainly with individuals who were identified with BESD . Where dyslexia is
concerned the label when conferred by others provides reassurance about the worries that
parents have not articulated. A study conducted in form of interviews with 22 families who
have experienced dyslexia, by Griffiths(2004) revealed most mothers felt relieved when
their child was diagnosed with dyslexia but, over half of them felt blamed by the school but
prominently they felt criticism for being overprotective , not doing enough at home or even
that the parents had emotional hindrances which affected the child(Griffiths,2004).

The interviews conducted and the responses provided indicate that having affirmation from
a professional about their concerns brought about a sense of relief:

“We had assumed it from very early on, you know from infant school through early years,
so yeah it was just a relief to know. And also his behaviour wasn’t that good at that point
and it was going down rapidly so it was quite nice to actually be told. (Mother B)” (Griffiths
et al., 2004, p.10)

The label justifies the child’s behaviour and hence, a sense of relief for the parents as the
blame is lifted off them as there is a medical term assigned to the individual’s behaviour
(Ryan & Runswick-Cole, 2008). There was a research by Eriksen and Kress (2006) which
have supported similar finding affirming that a label enables the parents to put a plan in
place for the individual’s progress.

9|Page
The identification of dyslexia through assessments and giving the individuals difficulties a
label does not just shift the blame away from the parents but also the individual who is
being labelled:

” I think it all made sense to him then, that it wasn’t his fault and that, 'cos he had just, as
he came out of infants he was just beginning to lose the heart and feeling out of sync with
his peers and feeling separate from his friends and I think having that label actually for him,
and I was saying ‘There's lots we can do, there's lots of help you can get' (Mother F)”
(Griffiths et al., 2004.p.10).

90% of the children involved in the study conducted by Riddick (1995) had a response
similar to the one mentioned in the study by Griffiths (2004) and stated that one of the
positive aspects is that the child no longer believed that they were incapable whereas, it
helped them to feel less different from the other children and to realize that there are other
children who face the same difficulties as themselves (Riddick,1995b).

Interviews conducted with parents about the relief after having a medical label given to the
child’s behaviour (Griffiths,2006; Broomhead,2013; Harborne et al., 2004) is not the same
with all parents. On the contrary, some parents have encountered the negative impact of
labelling and expressed their concerns about the label being a liability rather than an asset.

The following sub-sections will look at the limits labels put of the opportunities a child has,
stigma the child encounters and the negative effect of the medical model is discussed.

10 | P a g e
2.2. Parental concerns: limited access to the opportunities and bullying

Parents are relieved that a label with formal assessment explains the difficulties a child has
but, the manner in which they are treated by family members is contrasting to the manner
in which they were seen publically, family members are flexible, caring and affectionate
towards their child whereas, strangers often stare, comment or ignore them(Kelly,2005).

Parents are largely concerned about the manner in which their children are treated . As
opposed to the previous sub section, labels may not be preferred by parents for their
children (Ho,2004).In the interviews conducted by Griffith’s 2004, most of the mothers had
a sense of relief following a formal diagnosis but, as a parent there are numerous reasons
why they would not want the child to have a label. As discussed in the previous section the
teachers would base their educational decisions based on just the label rather than the
child’s personality, this was also noted in a study conducted by MacMaster et al.,2002, the
teachers had a bias based on the label designated to the child and hence, lowered their
expectations of the child. This bias towards a label is also noted in the peer groups which
would exclude a child due to a label (Taylor et al.,2010) which in turn effects their self-
esteem(McNulty,2003).

Other concerns that parents have expressed are that children have been denied access to
social opportunities and bullied by their peers due to unawareness of learning difficulties. A
study conducted by Glazzard, 2010 reported that children who experienced bullying did so
through verbal abuse, this was also supported with the findings by Humphrey and Millins
(2002), which reported that children with difficulties were every so often ridiculed by peers.
Due to this concern it is possible that the child is under constant supervision and is not
allowed to participate in activities of their own free will (Kelly, 2005). Parents have
expressed emotions of hurt, sadness and anger due to their child being treated in such a
manner. They also noted that being treated differently their children have developed
behaviours which were counter-productive which ranged from, aggressive behaviour
towards peers who provoked them to retaliating to authoritative figures at home due to
being pampered by people outside the family. Significant emphasis is placed on the parent’s
view that the positive attributes about their child were outnumbered by any adverse
experience of impairment (Kelly,2005).Jones and Swain (2001, pp.63) indicated that
parents approved the label as long as they were in control to navigate their child’s
educational decisions. Similarly, semi- structured interviews conducted by Riddick (1995)
reported the usefulness of the label in private settings as it benefitted the family and the
child to understand their requirements but felt that in a public context it could be used by

11 | P a g e
educators to segregate the child from their peers(Kelly,2005).This concern is typically due
to the professionals involved in conducting the assessments , they are typically the same
individuals who deny access through different means. They limit the child by controlling the
settings they are taught in, the time allocated for each activities and at times restricting
their entitlement to extracurricular activities (Deyhle, 1987; Schuster & Butler, 1986;
Thoits, 2005).

Many parents have expressed concerns about their child’s inability to appropriately express
their emotions and explain what they require. This was established in the interviews
conducted by Griffiths, 2004 two-thirds of the interviewees worried that their children were
in harm’s way due to their inability to assess danger and to express if any incidents of
abuse occurred (Kelly,2005).

In addition to the above mentioned concerns, parents are apprehensive about the self-
esteem of the child which may be impacted due to the above mentioned concerns. Even
with these concerns does the label provide support to the child? And if it does not, does the
support provided only look at academic outcomes? How does it impact the child? The
following sections will explore these issues.

12 | P a g e
3. IS THE CHILD RECEIVING THE SUPPORT?

Additional support and access to resources is the most extensively debated advantages of
labelling. With a precise and effective label opportunities and extra resources are accessible
which would otherwise not be made offered (Gillman, Heyman, & Swain,
2000;Slee,2009).The positive impact of labelling does not just bring about added resources
it also empowers the people involved to methodically prepare a plan that is customized to
the individual’s needs. Hence, the label would result in forming interventions which will
address the identified deficits (Archer & Green;1996).Riddick(2000), addressed the issue of
children being generalized based on the label . He suggested that the label would entitle the
individual to plans which are customized according to their needs and have access to the
funds provided by the government. Numerous studies have been conducted to unveil the
responses given by parents and students in relation to the positive effect of labelling.
Parents believed that without labels their children with learning difficulties would not have
access to speech and language therapy which is essential for improvement in the child
(Broomhead, 2013,). The experiences these parents have reinforced the claims made by
Gillman et al. (2000) stating that only when a label is given the resources are made
available for the child.

Macdonald (2010) wrote an article addressing the issue of anti-labelling approach where
there is no distinction between general reading difficulties and dyslexia. He conducted his
study through narrative analysis from 13 participants. The outcome of the study was that
although the label was assigned to the person the stigma associated was formed before the
label was assigned to the individual. The scope for future research should be that the stigma
associated with a label should be resolved rather than instilling the anti-labelling campaign.

However, even with additional resources and interventions being tailor made as per the
individual’s requirement the main asset of being labelled. In contrast, being labelled has
been deemed as a liability by parents and the students and has led to exclusion.

13 | P a g e
3.1. MISDIAGNOSIS: MINIMAL SUPPORT AND EXCLUSION

The previous section discussed the positive aspects of labelling but there are other negative
consequences of labelling. The following are contrary findings against labelling, the Rose
report noted that the main concern expressed by parents was the lack of support.This has
high probability if the label is incorrectly assigned to the individual, if the individual exhibits
signs of learning or communication difficulties and is misdiagnosed with a disorder which is
non-existent. This would direct the child to be placed in remedial classes (Fruttura &
Capper,2006).this incorrect assignment of a label may be due to cultural or language
differences arising which may be in the context of individuals who are assumed to have
language or learning difficulties (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002,Elliott & Place,2004). Labels are
assigned based on medical diagnosis which do not take into account the individual
differences (Ho,2004). Labels are just a simple form of explanation to what is a broad set of
complex symptoms, this simple form is the cause for generalization and stereotyping
(Leyens et al.,1994). Ho (2004) argued that disabilities and difficulties should be assessed
as a social construct rather than a medical construct. This being argued by Ho (2004), the
tendency is to assume the individual is defined by the label and the symptoms and
characteristics associated with it rather than the individual personality and difficulties
(Archer & Green,1996). The negative consequence to it is that the individuality is
disregarded and the manner in which the individual is perceived and treated in an
indifferent manner (Madon et al., 2006).

Another negative concern is the fundamental concept of assigning a label. The intention of
labelling an individual in itself indicates that not only the symptoms but the existence of the
difficulty lies within the individual itself. The negative consequence of this is the tendency to
confine the problem within the individual rather than taking into consideration numerous
other factors such as pedagogy, the manner in which instructions are given (Rapley ,2004).
Treating the label as justification of the internal disabilities may be the bases of assumption
that, all difficulties faced in the educational settings are related to the student’s intrinsic
disability (Carroll,1997). The within-child deficit is time and again used to explain the
difficulties rather than a child’s experience of inadequate teaching and support (Kelly
&Norwich,2004).

The other argument against labelling a child is self- fulfilling prophecy, this is because of the
nature of the label becoming a part of the individual’s self- concept hence, leading to self-
fulfilling prophecy. This is to say that children labelled as dyslexic display behaviours and
traits concurrent with the label. The children labelled as dyslexic are astute to know that it is

14 | P a g e
related to learning difficulties and hence, will always have difficulties doing their school
work. They assume that it is not worth trying as they feel that the result is going to be bad
anyways (Lawrence, 2009). There are studies done through interviews supporting these
statements, the interviews were conducted by Glazzard (2010) and MacDonald(2010),

Well I felt like kind of disappointed with myself because I couldn’t do stuff, so because I
couldn’t do it, I just didn’t bother doing it. I failed a lot. Because I was doing really rubbish
in school it affected my life at home. If a teacher asked me to write something I wouldn’t do
it. I found it hard so I just gave up. I’d be just naughty in general. I would not do the work
purposely just to annoy the teacher. I used to try to get sent out of lessons so I needn’t do
as much work. I didn’t know I was dyslexic but I knew I was finding it hard. Now I know I’m
dyslexic, I don’t think it gives me a reason to mess about. There’s no point really’ (Student
no. 4).(Glazzard,2010p,64).

“But you see the whole of the school and … of course me parents thought that I wasn’t
particularly bright … So I was slowly degraded to the point at which I thought I’m never
going to be able to work, I’m so stupid, you know. (Richard)”. (MacDonald,2010 pg.8).

It has also noted by Elliott (2005) that the label ‘dyslexia’ has no significance in terms of
interventions as they are the same as the ones assigned for general reading difficulties. It
has also been reported that the educational system is currently not adequately trained to
meet the needs of children with dyslexia (Earey,2013).

This section has looked at how the medical model is implemented further more than the
social model of disability and that in turn has negative effects on a child. The previous
section looked at assets of having a label but, more significantly even without a label it is a
child’s right to receive the support required in a classroom, no matter if they are differently
abled, talented or “normal”. The next section will look at how having a label may effect a
child’s self-esteem and if it does is it beneficial for the child’s development?.

15 | P a g e
4. Self-esteem of a child- being labelled Dyslexic

Labelling has positive as well as negative impacts but, one of the negative impacts
associated with it is lowered self-esteem in children identified as dyslexic (Humphrey and
Mullins, 2002a). The children who are labelled are viewed as ‘different’ this indicates to
being socially barred by peers this being ‘different’ is internalized by the children which in
turn affects their self- esteem (Schäfer et al., 2004). Not all labels are considered negatively
rather labels such as ‘sporty’, ’kind’, ‘intelligent’ are positive hence the labels associated
with special needs are considered different and allows the children who are bullies or ‘in-
group’ to distinguish themselves from children labelled as ‘special needs’ (Taylor et al.,
2010) this distinguishing factors are motivated intrinsically to justify their selection of
individuals who are different (Hara, 2002). The research findings from some of the papers
are included below from interviews conducted. Glazzard(2010), the participants expressed
the negative impact their teachers had on the self-esteem:

‘Well I had this teacher called Mrs P and she really didn’t understand. She was always telling
my parents that I was too slow . . . She used to bully me. I didn’t like her . . . She used to
get me in front of the class and humiliate me in front of the others. Then she’d make me sit
in a corner and encourage the class to laugh at me. She was horrible . . . I can rant on
about Mrs P for ages. When it was playtime she’d always give me extra work and I’d never
get a break...She’d shout at me a lot. She used to call me stupid and a baby’ (Student no.8)
(Glazzard,2010p.65).”

This impact on the child lowers their confidence and increases their emotions of inadequacy.
These feelings of inadequacy in relation to literary skills will eventually make them feel like
failures and lose confidence in themselves and their abilities (Lawrence, 2009).

On the contrary, there are students who had ‘effective teachers’ who supported them to do
better in school (Glazzard,2009). Supporting findings:

“Well the person I think has done the most and really supported me is Mrs S. She has done
the most out of the school . . . She knows how I feel. She’s always been there if I’ve needed
someone to talk to or needed help. If I’m feeling down I’ll go and talk to her and she has
always sorted it out for me . . .She’s the only teacher in the school that’s really done
wonders for me. She has really helped me’ (Student no. 9)(p.65).”

The common theme that emerged is that the ‘effective teacher’ was supportive,
understanding and made arrangements in class which are flexible (Glazzard,2009).

16 | P a g e
In regards to stigma, Labelling is noted a having a negative impact on a student this can be
due to stigmatization which in turn impacts the child’s self-esteem (Pilgrim, 2000). On the
contrary, MacDonald (2010), in his paper contradicted this notion and states that the
symptoms accompanying learning difficulties are stigmatized rather than the connection to
the label. Furthermore, the label is considered to be detrimental but the author put forward
that labelling can offer increased access to resources to the individual. Some individuals
received the support which allowed them to overcome social barriers which was beneficial
for the individual life long. There is limited research conducted on the social aspects of
dyslexia this can be the field of research in the future (MacDonald, 2010). The next section
will look at how we can bring about positive change and hopefully in the future eliminate the
negative aspects of labelling.

Implementing Gordon’s model to improve self-esteem would be a suggestion for my future

practice. We as teachers get frustrated with our students at some point or the other, and in
that frustration we would accuse the person saying ‘you’. Instead, implement criteria of
Gordon’s model is: I, when and because. When we use the word you the message is
received as attacking the individual. This is an assertive manner of communication rather
than aggressive, in this manner the individual’s self-esteem and respect is maintained
(Lawrence, 2009).

17 | P a g e
 Implications

Teacher Bias – practical implementation

It has been researched that a teacher’s attitude does impact a child’s achievement in class (
Honstra et al.,2010; Pearson,2009). Teacher bias has an immense impact on the child’s
achievement and self- esteem. Even though as teachers we know that labels negatively
impact a child the use of it is still prevalent. To bring about a positive change it is necessary
for teachers to establish positive relationships with the students primarily by using Carl
Roger’s person centred counselling (1951), of Acceptance, Genuineness and Empathy.

In regards to children with dyslexia the first criteria of Rogers is an essential quality a
teacher should develop as it one of the things labels deny a person of – acceptance. The
child feels isolated and acceptance from a teacher would enable the child to develop better
academically and emotionally (Humphrey, 2003). However, teachers should sincerely accept
a child as they are as they are able to understand verbal as well as non-verbal behaviours
which may show otherwise (Lawrence, 1996). The second criteria is genuineness,
genuineness is defined as being your true self instead of fitting into the role of a teacher. In
a study conducted by Humphrey (2003) noted that most of the participants expressed
feelings of unfair treatment from teachers which undeniably led to mistrust. By expressing
genuineness the teacher can re- establish a bond with the child to rebuild trust (Humphrey,
2003).The last criteria is Empathy, which is defined as being appreciative of feelings,
emotions and experiences of an individual.Empathy and acceptance are crucial for children
with dyslexia it aids to decrease the feelings of exclusion ( Humphrey, 2003).

In educational settings today labelling is still prevalent and it is duly noted to provide
customised support (Riddick, 2000) alongside the support, teacher’s judgment about a child
can be made without taking into account the child’s background. Whereas the teachers
should maximize on the child’s potential and strengths in order to build a positive
relationship with the child (Pitonyak, 2005).

Stigma and labelling are closely associated and it is considered to be one of the downsides
of using labels. In a study conducted by Riddick(2000) advocated that stigmatization can
occur even with a label being given to an individual. On the contrary, it has also has been
stated that a label can lead to stigma (Sethi, 2012). In a classroom, we as teachers should
establish a whole class policy to create awareness and an accepting environment to promote
inclusion this can be done through the circle of friends. The circle of friends is an innovative
concept and it aids in tacking the issue of social exclusion and isolation in children in school

18 | P a g e
(Barrett & Randall, 200). The adapted version developed by Shotton (1998) , varies from
the original as it discussed about the child in the circle of friends during their absence
whereas , in Shotton’s approach importance is given to the whole class forming friendships
and the students are asked to voluntarily participate in the circle( Shotton,1998).

Newton et al.(1996) claimed that the circle of friends benefits everyone involved and not
the child who is differently abled. Among the children it was noted that level of empathy,
listening skills and problem solving skills were increased alongside expressing feelings and
the power of change within the individual. This technique is beneficial for teachers as well as
noted from the noted maintained from the sessions specified that the teachers experienced
a sense of pride in the class and improved their self-esteem (Newton et al.,1996).

Acknowledge labels as complex phenomenon

As specified above names as apathetically put on understudies with no restorative

constructs however in light of the restricted learning they have of the turmoil. Marks are not
straightforward, unbiased or coordinate there are various components which frame it. They
are additionally the impetuses in the arrangement of the positive or negative results. To
adequately inspire the positive outcomes and diminish the negative ones, we should
perceive the useful way of these names and the way that they are frequently setting
subordinate, and in any event somewhat setting made. For instance, a quantifiable
weakness, for example, age-related decrease in hearing may constitute a vocation wrecking
handicap for the director of an ensemble symphony, however not for somebody in an
alternate stroll of life. Therefore, we ought not simpify names and consider them as
"outright," target classes. Or maybe, we ought to precisely consider that it is so vital to
legitimately recognize real difficulties, decide the seriousness and setting reliance of the
marked difficulties, and stay away from the inclination to name without tending to the
unpredictability and acquiring definite and target information to bolster a conclusion
(Daminco et al, 2010).

We ought to work towards taking a look at the challenges basic the mark instead of simply
take a look at the surface level. This implies not just precisely archiving real practices and
their effect on the unique circumstance, additionally deciding how the setting impacts the
practices and whether there are other new elements that must be enough portrayed and
tended to (Perkins, 2005). As opposed to arranging to manifestations to decide names we
ought to situate to the aptitudes, capacities, and systems that can decide practical

19 | P a g e
sufficiency inside the relative open and learning settings. Darley (1975) had this at the top
of the priority list when he proposed that, when diagnosing aphasia, we concentrate on
capacity not names.

Alternatives to medical model

Experts need to acknowledge contrasting options to the cynicism of present practice that
highlights the impairments of individuals. They ought to ponder their presumptions, biases
and mentalities towards disability and consider the capable effect of their perspective of
impaired youth (Priestley, 1999).

There should be a space created by professionals in order to allow parents to actively

participate and acknowledge their child’s varied abilities (Morris, 1998; Kelly & Monteith,
2005). This allows the child to be actively participate in society and who are significant in
making the choices and enhancing services provided being the current service customers
(Morris, 1998; Dowling and Dolan, 2001). The responsibility weighs on the experts to
deliberately reflect the strategies for correspondence that best fit individual youngsters'
capacities. Specialist organizations need to consider how they ask youngsters questions,
strategies for correspondence and set aside opportunity to counsel impaired kids without
the imminence of different grown-ups (Morris, 1998;Kelly & Monteith, 2005).

20 | P a g e
 Conclusion

The debate of labelling was from the perspective of teacher, parents and the student. The
main debate was if the label is an asset by providing additional support or if it’s a liability in
terms of exclusion and effect on self-esteem.

The principle concern ought to be to illuminate society and to make them mindful of the
expression "Dyslexia" to explain that it is an umbrella term which involves various
predicaments. If our society was to be aware of the effect of labelling, then it would not be
needed any longer (Lawrence,2009).Our practices are then affected by the labels that we
utilize. There is, obviously, much support in literature for labelling. Such support tends to
concentrate on the positive outcomes while neglecting the negative ones. As future
educators, we should consider the potential for both. Positively, working towards eliminating
the negative outcomes of labelling and accept the student’s uniqueness and work towards
uncovering the reality of the label (Daminco et al.,2010).

This assignment enabled me to critically evaluate the manner in which a “simple” label
placed by a teacher impacts them negatively. My view at the beginning of this assignment
has been that labels are a liability to the child as everything they do is associated with the
label. Their identity is left out in the process. I believe that my views still remain the same
and the knowledge I gained through this assignment will help me definitely to strive
towards doing a better job and to look past the label and see the uniqueness of the child.
Our job as teachers is to teach them that being different is normal, everyone has a diverse
idea of what ‘normal’ or ‘different’ is. This is only possible if we as adults model this
attitude. In the event that standard schools were to be "dyslexia well disposed" it is
required for the entire school strategies to be utilized this would advance sentiments of self-
esteem and assurance in all people this would be the illusive dream of having a genuinely
comprehensive ethos. Is that truly a probability or just an unattainable dream?

21 | P a g e
 References

Archer, M. & Green, L. (1996). Classification of learning difficulties. In S. Kriegler & P.

Englebrecht (eds.), Perspectives on learning difficulties. Hartfield, SA: Van Schaik.

Artiles, A. J. & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). English language learners with special education needs:

Identification, assessment and instruction. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.

Alvidrez, J. and Weinstein, R.S., 1999. Early teacher perceptions and later student academic

achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 91(4),p.731-746.

Barrett, W. and Randall, L., 2004. Investigating the circle of friends approach: Adaptations

and implications for practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 20(4), pp.353-368.

Brechin, A. (1999). Understandings of learning disability. In J. Swain & S. French (eds.),

Therapy and learning difficulties: Advocacy, participation and partnership. Oxford:

Butterworth Heinemann.

Broomhead, K., 2013. Blame, guilt and the need for ‘labels’; insights from parents of

children with special educational needs and educational practitioners. British Journal

of Special Education, 40(1), pp.14-21.

Carroll, J. B. (1997). Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception. Intelligence 24, 25–

52.

Damico, J.S., Müller, N. and Ball, M.J., 2010. Social and practical considerations in

labeling. The handbook of language and speech disorders, pp.11-37.

Deyhle, D. (1987). Learning failure: Tests as gatekeepers and the culturally different child.

In H. T. Trueba (ed.), Success or failure? Learning and the language minority student

(pp. 85–108). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

22 | P a g e
Dowling, M. and Dolan, L., 2001. Families with children with disabilities-inequalities and the

social model. Disability & Society, 16(1), pp.21-35.

Dudley-Marling, C., 2004. The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of learning

disabilities, 37(6), pp.482-489.

Earey, A., 2013. Parental experiences of support for pupils with dyslexia: ignoring the effect

on parents. Support for Learning, 28(1), pp.35-40.

Elliott J. & Place M., 2004. Difficulties in children. London, Routledge.

Elliott, J. G., 2005. Dyslexia: Diagnoses. Debates and Diatribes, Special Children, 46(2),

pp.19-23.

Etherington, K., 2007. Ethical research in reflexive relationships. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5),

pp.599-616.

Eriksen, K. and Kress, V.E., 2006. The DSM and the professional counselling identity:

Bridging the gap. Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 28(3), p.202.

Farrell, M., 2010., Debating special education.1st Edition.Oxon: Routledge.

Friend, M. and Bursuck, W.D., 2002. Including students with special needs: A practical

guide for classroom teachers. Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Company, 75

Arlington Street, Boston, MA 02116.

Frattura, E. & Capper, C. A. (2006). Segregated programs versus integrated comprehensive

service delivery for all learners: Assessing the differences. Remedial and Special

Education 27 (6), 355–64.

Glazzard, J., 2010. The impact of dyslexia on pupils' self‐esteem. Support for

Learning, 25(2), pp.63-69.

23 | P a g e
Gillman, M., Heyman, B. & Swain, J., 2000. What’s in a name? The implications of diagnosis

for people with learning difficulties and their family carers, Disability and Society,

15(3), pp.389–409.

Griffiths, C.B., Norwich*, B. and Burden, B., 2004. Parental agency, identity and knowledge:

mothers of children with dyslexia. Oxford review of education, 30(3), pp.417-433.

Hallahan, D.P., Lloyd, J.W., Kauffman, J.M. 1983. Academic problems. Practice of child

therapy: A textbook of methods, pp.113-141.

Harborne, A., Wolpert, M. & Clare, L., 2004. Making sense of ADHD: a battle for

understanding? Parents’ views of their children being diagnosed with ADHD,

Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 9(3), pp.327 339.

Ho, A., 2004. To be labelled, or not to be labelled: that is the question, British Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 32(2), pp.86–92.

Hornby, G. and Atkinson, M., 2003. A framework for promoting mental health in

school. Pastoral Care in Education, 21(2), pp.3-9.

Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., van den Bergh, L. and Voeten, M., 2010. Teacher

attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic

achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of learning disabilities.

Humphrey, N., 2003. Facilitating a positive sense of self in pupils with dyslexia: the role of

teachers and peers. Support for Learning, 18(3), pp.130-136.

Humphrey, N. and Mullins, P.M., 2002. Self‐concept and self‐esteem in developmental

dyslexia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2(2).

Jamieson, M., Parlett, M. and Pocklington, K., 1977. Towards Integration: A Study of Blind

and Partially Sighted Children in Ordinary Schools:[a Report of the National

24 | P a g e
 Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales]. NFER Publishing

Company.

Jordan, A. and Stanovich, P., 2003. Teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs about

students with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of

Research in Special Educational Needs, 3(1).

Jusransim, L., & Harber, K.D. ( 2005). Teacher expectancies and self-fulfilling prophecies:

Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.

Kelly*, B., 2005. ‘Chocolate… makes you autism’: impairment, disability and childhood

identities. Disability & Society, 20(3), pp.261-275.

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 (3), 411–35.

Kliewer, C., Biklen, D. and Kasa-Hendrickson, C., 2006. Who may be literate? Disability and

resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research

Journal, 43(2), pp.163-192.

Lauchlan, F. and Boyle, C., 2007. Is the use of labels in special education helpful?. Support

for learning, 22(1), pp.36-42.

Lawrence, D., 2009. Understanding Dyslexia: A guide for teachers and parents. McGraw-Hill

Education (UK).

Leyens, J. P., Yzerbyt, V., & Schadron, G. (1994). Stereotypes and social cognition. London:

Sage.

MacMaster K., Donovan L. & MacIntyre P., 2002. The effects of being diagnosed with a

learning disability on children’s self-esteem. Child Study J, 32 (2), pp.101–108.

25 | P a g e
Madon, S., Hilbert, G. S., Kyriakatos, E., & Vogel, D. (2006). Stereotyping the stereotypic:

When individuals match social stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36

(1), 178–205.

McMahon, S. E., 2012. Doctors diagnose, teachers label: the unexpected in pre-service

teachers’ talk about labelling children with ADHD. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 16(3), pp.249-264.

McNulty, M.A., 2003. Dyslexia and the life course. Journal of learning disabilities, 36(4),

pp.363-381.

Macdonald, S.J., 2010. Towards a social reality of dyslexia. British Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 38(4), pp.1-9.

Morris, D. (1998). Illness and culture in the postmodern age. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Newton, C, Taylor, G and Wilson, D. 1996. Circles of Friends: An inclusive approach to

meeting emotional and behavioural needs. Educational Psychology in Practice,

11: 41–48.

Dictionary, O.E., 1989. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Pearson, S., 2009. Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers' attitudes to

and construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 25(4), pp. 559-568.

Perkins,M.R.(2005).Pragmatic ability and disability as emergent phenomena. Clinical

Linguistics and Phonetics 19, 367–78

Pilgrim, D., 2000. Psychiatric diagnosis: more questions than answers. The

Psychologist,13(6).

26 | P a g e
Pitonyak, D., 10. Things You Can Do to Support A Person With Difficult Behaviours.

Pomeroy, E., 2000. Experiencing Exclusion. Stylus Publishing, 22883 Quicksilver Drive,

Sterling, VA 20166-2012.

Priestley, M. (1999) Discourse and identity: disabled children in mainstream high schools,

in: M. Corker & S. French (Eds) Disability discourse (Buckingham, Open University

Press).

Rapley, M., 2004. The social construction of intellectual disability. Cambridge University

Press.

Rice, M., 2004.,Brooks, G.(2004) Developmental dyslexia in adults: a research

review. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and

Numeracy.

Riddick, B., 2000. An examination of the relationship between labelling and stigmatisation

with special reference to dyslexia. Disability & Society, 15(4), pp.653-667.

Riddick, B., 1995. Dyslexia: Dispelling the myths. Disability & Society, 10(4), pp.457-474.

Roffey, S. ed., 2011. Positive relationships: Evidence based practice across the world.

Springer Science & Business Media.

Runswick-Cole, K., 2007. The Tribunal was the most stressful thing: more stressful than my

son’s diagnosis or behaviour: the experiences of families who go to the Special

Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDisT)’, Disability & Society, 22(3),

pp.315–328.

Ryan, S. and Runswick‐Cole, K., 2008. Repositioning mothers: Mothers, disabled children

and disability studies. Disability & Society, 23(3), pp.199-210.

27 | P a g e
Sethi, B., 2012. Searching for self in a world of labels. Disability & Society, 27(5), pp.717-

722.

Shotton, G. 1998. A Circles of Friends approach for socially neglected children. Educational

Psychology in Practice, 14: 22–25.

Slee, R., 2009. Beyond special and regular schooling? An inclusive education. International

Studies in Sociology of Education,18, pp.99–166.

Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P.K., Simon, C., Hunter, J.A., Mora-Merchán, J.A., et al.

(2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 379–394.

Schuster, T.L. and Butler, E.W., 1986. Labelling, mild mental retardation, and long-range

social adjustment. Sociological Perspectives, 29(4), pp.461-483.Children and

disability studies. Disability & Society, 23(3), pp.199-210.

Taylor, L.M., Hume, I.R. and Welsh, N., 2010. Labelling and self‐esteem: the impact of

using specific vs. generic labels. Educational Psychology, 30(2), pp.191-202.

Thoits, P.A., 2005. Differential labeling of mental illness by social status: A new look at an

old problem. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(1), pp.102-119.

Trahar, S., 2009, January. Beyond the story itself: Narrative inquiry and autoethnography in

intercultural research in higher education. In Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 10, No. 1).

Warnock, M., 2005. Special Educational Needs: A New Look, Impact 11. London, Philosophy

of Education Society of Great Britain.

28 | P a g e