The goal of categorizing an individual into one of the fourteen disability areas proposed by the US Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to improve instructional practices for the betterment of the individual receiving services. However, the problem that has risen in society, as a result, is that of labeling. Labeling a child with a learning disability (LD) can in many ways dictate what will become of that individual. Throughout their education, these individuals will experience discrimination and segregation from other peers who may not think of them as “normal” like the rest. Even teachers will tend to treat these individuals differently, if it is known that they have an LD label. As a result, those who are labeled may view themselves as inferior to their peers, further affecting other areas of their lives well into adulthood.

When looking at the latest research on the issue of labeling students with learning disabilities, three separate—but related—disciplines seem to have their own views on the matter. In education, particularly special education, labeling is seen as helpful. The assumption is that if a student is given a label linked to certain academic struggles, then the educators can better accommodate for that individual. The problem with this, as Thomson (2012) points out, is that “these classifications/categories are made in an artificial way, for instructional purposes, because in fact individuals themselves cannot be precisely categorized” (p. 159). Thus, instead of looking at positive individual differences to better accommodate that individual, educators use a faulty system that relies on labels to give them an inaccurate and generalized depiction of how the student will behave in the school environment.

While this option may appear to have long-term benefits for educators, the long-term consequences for those who are labeled with an LD are often times overlooked. Thomson (2012) elaborates on this, stating that most labels “may not result in the student getting appropriate services, and once attributed are difficult to remove or forget” (p. 161). This aspect of labeling is one that families and professionals should take into account when deciding whether or not an LD label is necessary. The sad reality is that, although appearing to be effective on paper, these labels will have more harmful effects on the individuals being labeled all throughout their lives.

Scholars and practitioners in the social sciences have entered this discussion, confirming that labeling students with a learning disability can seriously hinder them well into adulthood. Both psychologists and sociologists agree that a learning disability (LD) label alone can result in stigma from others and a poor self-image for the person labeled. In a study by Nussey, Pistrang, and Murphy (2013), the researchers concluded that “simply providing a label without additional information is ineffective or even unhelpful to the child given the label, particularly if teachers lack pre-existing knowledge about the condition” (p. 623). Referring to the common misconception that labels will provide an avenue for better accommodations in the classroom, Nussey et al. shed light on the reality of this issue. As their research shows, labels themselves do not by their own nature allow for better accommodations in the classroom. Instead, Nussey et al. affirm that there is potential for the label to be unhelpful in the progress of the student—something that may seem counterintuitive to some of the parties involved.

The good news is that with active participation by the parties involved in labeling, it is possible that these negative effects of labeling can be greatly reduced. Interestingly, teachers seem to garner the most attention when discussing solutions for the issue of LD labeling. Nussey et al. suggest that teachers be more thoroughly trained in psychological education to better understand the diagnosis behind the label given to a student. Although mainly focused on teachers as well, Rennie et al. suggest teachers need further training in assessments. An alternative to this, they note, would be for school psychologists to partake in the assessment process from beginning to end, since they do have the proper training and ethical responsibility of carrying out all stages of the assessment process as it relates to learning disability labels. Lastly, Shifrer (2013)—a scholar in the field of sociology—believes that there should be changes in the school system overall. The main focus, she considers, should be to replace the negative views associated with an LD label with more positive ones.

While it may be almost impossible to stop the labeling of individuals, relevant parties—including educators, professionals, parents, and peers—can do more to reduce the negative implications that may arise from labeling a student with a learning disability. As mentioned, teachers can obtain further training in assessments and further education in individual conditions. Similarly, school psychologists can do more by providing training and education to teachers, parents, and peers, allowing them to better understand the labeled and their positive attributes. The extent to which this can and should be done will likely depend on how important this issue is for the school district and also on the resources and time available.

In the end, all who are connected to this issue in one way or another—or even those who will be connected with this issue of labeling in the future—can learn something from this currently-imperfect system and can choose to form a part of a more understanding and knowledgeable community able to treat those with labels in a more respectful and appropriate manner.

References

Nussey, C., Pistrang, N., & Murphy, T. (2013). How does psychoeducation help? A review of the effects of providing information about Tourette syndrome and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child: Care, Health & Development, 39(5), 617-627. doi:10.1111/cch.12039

Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4), 462-480. doi:10.1177/0022146513503346

Thomson, M. M. (2012). Labelling and self-esteem: Does labeling exceptional students impact their self-esteem? Support for Learning, 27(4), 158-165.