Fixing a broken tongue Why is the language we use in education important? A response by Emeritus Professor Brahm Norwich.
Brahm Norwich in response to Lee Elliot Major
After reading Lee’s latest blog post, Emeritus Professor Brahm Norwich from the University of Exeter sent us the following response, which he agreed could be published here. He acknowledges of the below: ‘I know it is more complex than this, but I wanted to respond to your piece.’
I read the argument you have just sent round for the need for a new language to replace ‘disadvantaged’ and felt that I wanted to add my perspective on this call and the pitfalls and underlying issues based on the language of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and disability to which you allude.
I have picked out some sections of what you wrote and will comment on these:
‘Equity’ signals the need to provide extra support for pupils who need it most,
Equity is used to justify/explain how some have additional support/needs, even though everyone has equal rights. But there are issues with equity. One is how to determine how much extra support without evoking judgements of unfairness, which I will leave, and the other that the giving of extras might be stigmatising / devaluing in the labels used, the type of provision and the settings used. Differentiating can be enabling but also stigmatising. This tension gives rise to dilemmas which are handled and played out in many ways, one is to look for new less stigmatising labels; there are other ways to be found too.
Our decision to replace the term ‘disadvantaged pupils’ with ‘children from under-resourced backgrounds’ has attracted a lot of attention. One reason for doing so was to avoid the trap of deficit thinking.
Disadvantaged like SEN can be seen/felt to be stigmatising by those so identified, when used in negative stereotyping and discriminating ways. The history of how disabled as a term has been reclaimed by disabled people and used positively in a more social model way, is relevant to replacing terms like disadvantaged. The reclaiming of disability was done by switching the causal attribution to society away from within person impairments. So those in the radical disability movement like the phrase disabled person rather than a person with disability, because it implies disabled by society – Disadvantaged has similar connotations so could be taken to mean disadvantaged by society.
The deficit approach frames children as inferior beings who need to be converted to fit in with the middle-class norms of the classroom.
From my above point with disadvantaged being done to children, this refocuses the deficit onto the environment not the child. Also, there is a difference between a deficit attributed to a child’s functioning, e.g. this child has social skills difficulties and implying that the child is deficient/has a general deficit and as inferior. Nor does recognising functional difficulties/deficits imply only middle class or alien norms to the culture from which the child comes. Clearly difficulties are recognised as are strengths and talents in relation to norms/values. This could be taken to imply a call for labels such as disadvantaged to be used carefully and be specific in terms of disadvantaged in relation to what.
The term ‘disadvantaged pupil’ also focuses our minds on individuals, when facing hardship is about the circumstances individuals find themselves in.
But as mentioned above like disabled, disadvantaged implies external causal factors not something inherent to the child. I am not sure that your preferred phrase - ‘children from under-resourced backgrounds’ – works in two ways. One is its length – the tendency for short easy to use terms could lead to an acronym arising e.g. ‘URB children’. Secondly, resourced has a funding/financial connotation for many, which is not what I believe is intended by its suggested use.
For similar reasons the term ‘BAME' (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) is problematic: it imposes a false homogeneity on a vast group of people blessed with a rich diversity.
Yes agreed, all labels have this homogenising effect – which is a reason for avoiding over general labels without specifying more about the person and the adopted value position – their varied strengths and how these interact with their difficulties in. a context that has support and barriers.
A need for new language …. parallels here with the language of neurodiversity promoted by those who have suffered the stigma and prejudice of being labelled ‘special needs’ or facing ‘learning difficulties’. Calling someone ‘neurodivergent’ rather than ‘autistic’ transforms our mindset from a negative perception to a positive one.
There is a theory about a labelling cycle – new terms introduced to support positivity > adoption > continued simplified use > accumulates negative connotations > call for new language and terms. The SEN/disability field has examples of this cycle playing out over several decades. SEN is a good example introduced in 1970, developed negativity in several ways, calls for new terms e.g. social model of disability and neurodiversity.
Some people argue that what this all means is that what counts most is a values-based approach to language use and attributions; respecting people/individuals; avoid negative deficit language about people, but in respecting someone recognise and negotiate with them what their strengths/difficulties/needs are and act accordingly. I think the current debates about neurodiversity bear this out.
Brahm Norwich is Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology and Special Educational Needs at the School of Education, University of Exeter. He has previously served at London University, and has also been a school teacher, an educational psychologist, a university teacher and researcher. His broad areas of interest are inclusive education and special needs. See his profile here: Brahm's Profile