I had a chance to interview Lois Letchford, an educator and author of the book, Reversed. Letchford is adamantly against labeling students. She says the problem is not the education system as much as the label. When children are labeled with a disability, the players in the system lower their expectations. They don't invest as much into the education of the child. And that can be catastrophic for the student, she says.
Labeling in schools:
Martina Navratilova: Labels are for clothes. Labels are for filing. Labels are not for people.
Why use labels? What’s the theory behind “labeling?”
Labels are social constructs.
“... acknowledgment of the social construction of labels does not deny the existence of tangible patterns of difference in those with labels such as learning difficulties, but it does require that we acknowledge that a label is a tool for communication, organization and contemplation rather than an accurate representation of the individual.
Labels also carry with them expectations of behavior.”
Rix, Jonathan (2006). Does it matter what we call them? Labelling people on the basis of notions of intellect. Ethical Space. The International Journal of Communication Ethics, 3(4) pp. 22–28.
The theory behind labels has been formed from a “medical model.” This model works well in medicine. An individual has a set or series of identifiable symptoms. Visiting the doctor leads to tests being ordered, then completed. Results identify where the issues lie, thus “treatment” can begin. Treatment which is appropriate and targeted giving the patient the best possible chance to improve. Throughout the “medical model” the person is a passive recipient of treatment. Yes, mental mindset and health play a part, yet the treatment provided is, in general terms, external.
Education has followed this example.
A child does not do well in class. We test. We get results. We remediate. End results vary.
The idea behind testing is to identify a child’s strengths and weaknesses. The aim is to build on strengths and remediate deficits.
However, the variation between the medical and the education model is fundamental. Unlike medicine, where a patient “receives” treatment, a child cannot be a “passive recipient” of a “treatment or remediation” in education. A child cannot be hooked up to a “phonemic awareness drip,” learn by osmosis or inhaling from an educational setting.
And this is a major difference, which is often not acknowledged, in the two approaches.
If a child is a “passive recipient” in a “reading program” the chances of learning are limited.
Galileo said it: “You can't teach anybody anything, we can only help them discover it within themselves.”
For children to be successful using any approach, there has to be a “buy-in” from the child. We are not teaching robots (although robots apparently learn more through play) or machines; we are working with young, very vulnerable children who need emotional engagement with us and the material being taught. Only when we have “engagement” do we open doors which then create learning opportunities for our students.
Unfortunately, the medical model is also used in education to limit participation in specialized programs. Why? Specialized programs cost.
The drawbacks of having a label:
Labels don’t always provide what we expect.
- The testing has been used to identify and limit the numbers of students entering “special education.” Statements such as: “Yes, we see the challenges your child faces, yet the child’s profile doesn’t qualify them for additional resources.”
“Yes, we see the challenges. Our district offers “this .....program.”
The list goes on and on.
2. Labels carry with them expectations of behavior.
“Learning disabled.” “Learning disability.” “Specific learning disability.”
These three labels have “learning” central to their theme suggesting a child cannot “learn.” That’s a fallacy. Our students CAN learn. They struggle with learning to read.
Dyslexia. The label tells of “difficulty with words.” Such labels can carry lower expectations.
3. A “label” can provide an excuse for the child’s inability to be successful in school.
“Oh, they are LD (Learning Disabled). That’s why they are not doing well in school.” That’s an excuse for a student's poor performance. “Oh, the student is lazy.” “Oh, the student doesn’t work hard enough.” The list of excuses goes on and on.
4. Labels limit expectations.
Of all the challenges labeling provides, I believe the “limited expectations” is one of the worst. It is like we, as adults, cannot see past the label. It limits expectations from the beginning and does not allow adults to see any other qualities the child has. Dr. Stuart Shanker from Mehrit Center in Canada once stated, “we do not know the IQ of six-year-olds.”
5. Labels can often limit teaching.
I had personal experience with “label’s limiting teaching” and it shocked me to the core. It is the reason I became a reading specialist.
A simple synopsis: The school diagnostician had called my son “the worst child she had seen in twenty years of teaching.”
That afternoon the reading teacher had my son learning “sight words.” These words are a fundamental component in learning to read. She sent him home with the same two sentences she did for every other child in her care.
Her sentence for the word “saw”: I saw a cat climb up a tree.
When I talk about reading in workshops with teachers, I ask, “What could be wrong with this sentence?” Very few make comments. The challenge with this sentence has nothing to do with decoding and everything to do with language.
This word “saw” has three meanings: an object, to cut, and to look. The teacher has only given the abstract meaning and given a sentence my son had never seen—that of a cat climbing up a tree. Thus, a disconnect. And instead of teaching my son, “this word has three meanings, and this is how language works,” the teaching failed to meet my son’s academic and educational needs where he was. How easy it is to perpetuate the theory “this boy’s not very smart and he struggles with learning,” rather than examining our teaching.
Additional struggles come from the student and their position in life. They do not have the language to say or scream “that sentence does not make any sense!” If a child could say these words, teaching and learning would be easy! My son would have been screaming, “We don’t cut cats in half!” But he didn’t have such words. As teachers, we have to watch and look at a student’s body language. Do they “get” the concept I am teaching? When students comprehend, their body language changes dramatically. We have to watch, look, and listen to all the signs from students.
When I teach, I use pictures and actions to ensure a child has the same image in their mind as I have in mine. I’m continually watching a child’s body language for signs of confusion, (frowning) participation (are they engaged), and confidence.
The positives of a label:
A label is there to assist in giving support for a child, to give an idea of challenges they may face, and give a reference point for all involved.
How can parents advocate for their children while reducing the risk that they'll be seen as their label?
Parents must advocate for their children.
However, the real question is: how?
My first thought is: Be kind, yet persistent.
My second suggestion may sound as if I have my self-interests at heart. I would buy a copy of my book, Reversed: A Memoir, and give it to my child’s teacher. Ask the teacher to read it, so you can discuss it further. It is a teaching manual of sorts, and could change their teaching and perception.
The reason for this is simple: Teachers need models which counter labels. They may not know what else to do or say. They follow advice and experience which they know. My story provides alternative thinking about students and teaching reading.
Some teachers are quite open to suggestions, others not so much. Reading my book helps widens perceptions of those labeled early in life. My story also gives a long-term “blueprint” for success.
Additionally, I would begin by asking basic questions about the reading process. One can expect that teachers may be confused by such questions, but this is why such questions need to be asked.
Does my child gain the meaning from a text?
Does my child understand prepositions? (In, on, under, about, around, beside, etc; these words are tested and taught in speech therapy.)
Do you model the connection between oral and written language?
Do you model how written language works?
Does my child know about past, present, or future tense?
Do you model how words have multiple meanings?
Does my child understand words with multiple meaning?
Do you, as a teacher, model how to resolve pronouns?
Can my child resolve pronouns?
Do you act out stories in your classroom?
I would ask all these questions before I asked about a student's phonemic awareness knowledge.
Phonemic awareness is the ability to play with sounds. (Phonemic Awareness is the ability to hear and manipulate the sounds in spoken words and the understanding that spoken words and syllables are made up of sequences of speech sounds. Yopp, 1992; see reference).
Phonemic awareness has its foundation in oral language.
If a child is still not successful in the classroom, the next step is to ask for an evaluation. This is a big step, with many stakeholders involved in this process.
At the end of the day, our children need to be safe and happy when going to school. I believe they need to feel as if they belong in the classroom and have a place in the teacher's heart.
My son failed first grade. His teacher screamed at him every day during the school year. I still sent him to school each and every day. How I wish I could change his experience and his memory.
The full impact of that year really hit me when I recently asked my son, now aged 30, about this time in school. His response was devastating. My son, who now holds a Ph.D. and is confident and articulate when talking about mathematics or engineering, failed to put words together. He could not talk. His tongue went round and round in his mouth as he tried to create a sentence. My heart cried—for him and for me.
We have to work with the education system, yet also provide the best experience for our most vulnerable and valuable students.
We must never forget why we are advocating for our child. It is so they can live like most other people, learn to communicate, to read and to write and enjoy doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment