The Dangers of Labelling Learners

"Definitions belong to the definers, not the defined."

~ Toni Morrison
"Once you label me, you negate me."
~ Søren Kierkegaard

P attern recognition is one of the primary functions of the human brain. Infants

come into existence seeking out patterns—categories—in their environment. One of

the earliest bits of categorization in which a human infant engages is distinguishing
between what is me and what is not me. As the child becomes verbal, s/he asks
hundreds of questions that help the child refine her categorization abilities.
Eventually, s/he labels the patterns/categories s/he has identified with words to
simplify storing and communicating distinctions.

Over time, categorizing becomes more discriminating. That is a car, not a truck.
That is an apple, not an orange. That is a dog, not a cat. The act of creating these
categories requires active participation of the mind, but once labelled, people tend to
go on automatic pilot. Thinking becomes habitual or, in the words of Harvard
psychologist Ellen J. Langer—mindless.

In her 1989 book, Mindfulness (1), Langer explains that once categories are created
and distinctions made, they tend to take on a life of their own. She gives the
example of a man who rings your doorbell at two o'clock in the morning. The man is
well-dressed, wears expensive jewellery, and there's a Rolls Royce parked at the
curb. He tells you that he's on a scavenger hunt that he really must win. He needs a
piece of wood about three feet by seven feet. If you have one to give him, he'll give
you $10,000. You rack your brain, willing to do whatever it takes. But the only place
you can think of to get such a piece of wood is the lumber yard and it's closed at this
hour. "Sorry," you say reluctantly.

The next day, while passing a construction site, you see the perfect piece of wood.
It's a door that has not yet been installed. You realize that you could simply have
taken your own door off the hinges and earned a quick $10,000! Langer calls this
"entrapment by category."

There's no doubt that categorizing simplifies both experience and communication.

Early man would have been more likely to survive once he learned to quickly
distinguish between dangerous and benign objects. Asking someone to hand you a
stapler is a lot simpler than saying, "Would you please give me the V-shaped metal
device that discharges U-shaped metal prongs used to attach papers"?

But there is a serious downside to this process that people rarely consider. The
labels we attach to other human beings significantly influence what we perceive and
how we behave. If someone is labelled as unfriendly, we approach that person with
caution. The label primes us to notice—perceive—ways in which the person might be
unpleasant or even do us harm. If a person is labelled as friendly, we unconsciously
expect smiles and helpful behaviours. However, we might interpret that same
smile coming from the "unfriendly" person as an attempt to deceive! In other words,
because labels determine what we perceive and how we interpret the world, they
enable some perceptions and behaviours and inhibit others.

Schools—Hotbeds of Categorization

S
ADHD,
chools are hotbeds of categorization—labelling. Honors, gifted, remedial, BD,

differently-abled, special needs, overachievers, underachievers,

troublemakers, etc. Worse, because many such labels tend to focus on the negative
—on what needs to be "fixed" in a student—rather than on a student's strengths,
those categories often force teachers into negative perceptions. For example,
labelling a student as ADHD or remedial inhibits teachers from perceiving that
student as highly gifted in some areas. The category—the label—throws a spotlight
on one aspect of the student and forces other, often more positive, characteristics
into the background. The teacher unconsciously "expects" that kind of behaviour
from the student—and acts accordingly. Researchers have observed that a teacher
may ignore a behaviour from one student and punish the same behaviour from
another, based solely on the labels that have been applied to those students!
(Teacher tend to act according to the label perceived)

As Toni Morrison suggests in the opening quote, it is imperative to recognize that

these categories do not exist in the student. They exist in the mind of the person
who identified a pattern of behaviour in that student and gave it a name. These
categories, or labels, are not absolutes—pre-existing conditions over which we have
no control. Choosing to change the label we apply to someone radically changes our
perceptions of that person. Are you arrogant or self-confident? Is a student
disruptive or filled with energy that might be channelled to unique outcomes?

(The labels are not absolute and the way we perceive it can change accordingly)

Unfortunately, examples of children being "labelled" at an early age are on the rise.
We hear about kindergarten children being repeatedly suspended for being
troublemakers. In her "end of year" notes about the children in her kindergarten
class—notes that were passed on to the first-grade teacher—one teacher labelled
children monsters, terrorists, and demons. As a result, on the first day of school—
before she had even met the children, the first grade teacher was predisposed by
the label to focus on these children as potential "troublemakers." Where did this
happen? Not surprisingly, in an urban school attended entirely by poor and minority
students.(2)
(Example of labelling happen to the children at early age whereas report cards of the
children are filled with negative labels, make them keep perceived as
troublemakers)

Would parents accept similar labels coming from a teacher in a middle- or upper-
class school? If you had been called a terrorist from your earliest years, thus
shaping the perceptions and expectations of the significant adults in your life, isn't it
more likely that you would live up to the label in later years? Research offers a
resounding "Yes!" The long-standing effects of labelling are well-researched and
have been for decades.

(researcher found that labelling have long-standing effect)

"In one's attempts to realize the expectations that are made of him, either
academically or behaviourally, a student attempts to achieve what is known as the
self-fulfilling prophecy, in which what is expected of him becomes a reality simply
because it has been expected of him. If a student …carries the label "disruptive" or
"difficult," the student will achieve the standards that have been set for him simply
because he knows that such is expected of him. These expectations…are usually
groundless; they may be expectations that have come about by something as trivial
as appearance, yet they affect the student's achievement because he believes that
he must reach the standards that have been set for him.…[T]he student does not
put any effort into his work or into improving his behaviour because he has been
labelled "slow"…[T]his label has become part of his identity, and if he would achieve
or behave in a way that is beyond that label, he would essentially be losing part of
his identity.(3)

(In a long term, students prefer to do exactly what the label said they have no effort
to improve themselves because the label has become his identity)

What happens when you change your "label" for another person? For example, you
think of that person as "stubborn" (negative). You change that label to
"determined". (positive) How does your thinking about the person change? The
person doesn't change! Your experience of the person's behaviour itself doesn't
change! Yet you perceive and interpret their behaviour differently. Based on how we
choose to "label" people, places, things, and events in our environment, we create
the "reality" in which we live. The good news is that we can change that reality
whenever we wish!

(We can change how we perceive other person, from negative trait to positive trait,
and it can also change how we view the world)

Pros and Cons of Labelling Learners

D espite their negative effects on children, many educators defend the use of

labels. In the formative years of special education (mid-1940s to early 1970s),

having sub-categories within the "learning disabilities" label enabled educators to
advocate for specific groups of children. Educators claimed the following
"advantages" for this labelling.

 Federal and local funding of special education programs are based on

categories of disabilities;
 Labelling enables professionals to communicate with one another because
each categorical label conveys a general idea about learning characteristics;
 The human mind requires "mental hooks" to think about problems. If we got
rid of current labels, people would just make up new labels to take their
place. Just look at the evolution of terms such as "mildly retarded."
 Labelling the disability spotlights the problem for the public. Labeling can
generate social concern and improve fund-raising.
 Labelling may make those without disabilities more tolerant of the minority
with disabilities. (In my experience, a "labelled" child is more, not less, likely
than the unlablled child to become the target of bullies.)
 Labelling has led to the development of specialized teaching methods,
assessment approaches, and behavioural interventions that are useful for
teachers of all students.

Every one of these "advantages" rests on the premise that there are distinct
categories of children. Is this true? Even the "labellers" recognize that a "category"
such as Autistic doesn't describe a fixed set of characteristics or behaviours. Thus,
we now have "Autistic Spectrum Disorder," which includes everything from social-
interaction difficulties (Asperger's, etc) to communication challenges, to a tendency
to engage in repetitive behaviours. Additional labels such as "high-functioning
autism" make it clear that any "generic" label is a gross simplification. (4)

We have paid a steep price for the gains made by students with disabilities. Once
designated as "disabled," the label passes from one teacher to another through the
child's cumulative record. Regardless of the high-sounding rhetoric, these children
are considered "deficient." Here are just a few disadvantages to labelling learners.

 Labels shape teacher expectations. Studies on teacher expectations have

shown that what teachers believe about student capability is directly related
to student achievement.
 All children exhibit inappropriate behaviours at times, but labels magnify a
student's actions. A behaviour that would be overlooked in an "unlabelled"
child becomes a proof of the "behavioural problems" of a labelled child.
 Labels send the message that the learner has a problem. But what if the
problem isn't with the learner, but in the learning environment or the
teaching methodology? Labels blame learners for not conforming to school!
  Labels mark students as "different" and "deficient" when they may simply
take longer to move through developmental stages.
 Millions of students have been identified with specific learning disabilities, but
each is a unique human being. Labels become a form of stereotyping, which
can harm learners. "Don't expect Jamal to be very good at math because he's
'intellectually disabled." (AKA has a low IQ) So much for "growth mindset"!
Labelling a learner based on IQ assumes that IQ measures some tangible,
unchangeable ability or lack thereof. Is that assumption correct?
 Diagnostic labels are unreliable. For example, states use different criteria for
the same categories. Many tests used to "measure" characteristics have
questionable validity and reliability.(5)

The definition of child abuse includes causing emotional harm to children. Can
anyone honestly defend the practice of "branding" children for the convenience of
adults?