The document discusses issues related to labeling students, including: 1) Historically, labeling was used to segregate and stigmatize students with disabilities, but views have shifted toward inclusion in recent decades. 2) Personal experiences illustrate how labeling can make students feel isolated, different, or that they do not belong. 3) School districts have become adept at coding and labeling students to receive funding, but this may not serve students' individual needs. 4) Redefining learning disabilities to focus on students' strengths and challenges, rather than labels, can help provide more meaningful learning opportunities.

1. What’s
in a
label?
Alaina Smith
EPSE 590
November 8, 2011

4. My personal connection
Brief historical view
Examples from SD#42
(Maple Ridge & Pitt
Meadows)
Redefining LD
Closing remarks

6. Prior to the
It wasn‘t until
1970s, many Education for All
1982 that all
students who Handicapped
Canadian
had disabilities Children Act,
students were
and special 1975 in the US
granted the right
needs were began the shift
to inclusion in
segregated from towards
the education
general inclusion
system
education
Personalized learning for
each student in British
Columbia means a shift All students should
from a set of broad, have equitable
uniform learning access to learning
outcomes and courses, opportunities for
to learning that is achievement, and
increasingly student-
initiated and self the pursuit of
directed. excellence in all
It is learning that is co- aspects of their
planned with students, educational
parents and teachers. BC programs.
Ministry of Education
October 2011

7.  From the Ontario Coalition
on Inclusive Education,
2002
 Labeling is a process of  teachers didn't want to teach
creating descriptors to me
identify persons who  forcing parents to say what is
differ from the norm wrong with their children
(Darrow and White,  teachers were mean
1998)  being segregated, pushed
around and called names
 *Labeling is definitive;  it made me feel different
once we say it then it from everybody else
holds meaning  when I found out I was really
angry. I rebelled. I acted out.
(Namka, 1997)
 I felt like an outcast
Global Views Personal Views

8.  ―I always felt a bit  ―I felt like an alien.
alone and isolated I always felt like I
from other people…I never belonged to
did a lot of any group that I
pretending as a wanted to belong
child. It was my way to.‖
of coping with the  Steven Spielberg,
fact that I didn‘t movie maker,
feel like I fit in.‖ dyslexic, struggled
 Keneau Reeves, with math,
actor, dyslexic dropped out of
high school

9.  School district #42  ‗60s and ‗70s - 97%
 Students are labeled
considered ―typical‖
or coded to get  ‗80s and ‗90s – 90%
Ministry funding  Late ‗90s – present day
 System is very adept
– 65% - 70%
at coding students  Newly trained teachers
are not armed to teach
 Education is becoming
the diversity in current
more specialized, BC classrooms
therefore harder for
classroom teachers to Based on a presentation given
meet needs by Laurie Meston, Director of
Student Support Services,
2009.

10.  after struggling through
the primary grades with
learning to read and
write, Lexi was diagnosed
in Grade 4 with Dyslexia
and a fine motor delay
 She was embarrassed to
learn that she had and LD
and was convinced that it
stood for ―LEXI DUMB‖
 Took until a new school in
Grade 6 before she came
to terms with it and really
began learning how to
deal with her LD

11.  Kirkprovided one  In BC, we identify
students with an LD
of the first based on the
definitions in following criteria:
1966, and at least  Persistent difficulty
11 definitions have learning and
been accepted as  Average or above
average cognitive
the official ability and
definition since.  Weaknesses in
cognitive processing
Siegel and Lipka, 2008 BC Special Education Manual, pg. 55

12.  Students are  People, not programs
individuals make the difference
 Learning spaces need  Is change possible
to promote success within our system or do
we need to change the
 Curriculum needs to system?
be flexible and  Students need to be
accessible so that all involved in their
learners can be educational path
successful  It is the learning
 Teacher training process that is
needs to reflect meaningful not how
needs of students much content we cover
The only “good learning” is that
“We need all teachers to be as
which is in advance of
development (Vygotzky) good as our „good‟ teachers

14. ―If one is Using student Community of
master of one interests to learners
thing and drive
understands instruction. All classes
one thing well, Sometimes have a
one has, at the this involves ―Buddy‖ class
same time, unusual topics that they work
insight into and or methods with,
understanding sometimes in
of many
and looking
outside the a sharing of
things.‖ (Vinc learning,
ent Van Gogh) box to make
curriculum sometimes as
connections teachers.

15. Teaching staff Looking at Students are
individual,
and students ways to complex and
how to use integrate certainly more
metacogniton curriculum to than a label. We
and related make learning must focus on
strategies to more student
facilitate meaningful strengths, be
aware of their
learning. This and connected challenges and
means for students provide
dedicated ProD Integrated unit on meaningful
opportunities on structures, 3-D opportunities to
these topics. shapes and address both.
communities

16.  What we want and  "The principle goal of
need is education pure education in the schools
should be creating men
and simple, and we and women who are
shall make surer and capable of doing new
faster progress when things, not simply
we devote ourselves to repeating what other
finding out just what generations have done;
education is and what men and women who
are creative, inventive
conditions have to be and discoverers, who
satisfied in order that can be critical and
education may be a verify, and not accept,
reality and not a name everything they are
or a slogan. offered."
-
John Dewey,
Experience and Education Jean Piaget

18. Ashlie, Cheryl. (2009). ―The Rise in ‗Non-typical‘ Students: A
Challenge for Our Times.‖ Visions: BC‘s Mental Health and
Addictions Journal, Vol. 5, No.2, p. 4-5.
Darrow, A. & White, G.W. (1998). ―Sticks and Stones… and Words
CAN Hurt: Eliminating Handicapping Language‖ in Music Therapy
Perspectives, Vol. 16 #2.
Davis, K. (2004). What‘s in a name: Our only label should be our
name: Avoiding the stereotypes. The Reporter, 9(2), 10-12, 24.
http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=364
Dewey, John. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to
the philosophy of education. Simon & Schuster Inc.: New York.
Egan, K., &Madej, K. (2009). Learning in depth: Students as
experts. Education Canada, 49, 18-23.
LiD: learning in depth. Retrieved from http://www.ierg.net/ on
November 3, 2010.
Namka, Lynn Ed. D. (1997). ―Labels are for Jelly Jars: Teach
Children—Don‘t Label Them!‖
members.aol.com/angriesOut/teach3htm.
Siegel, L. &Ladyman, S. (2002). A review of special education in
British Columbia.http://www.reatbc.org.downloads/review.pdf

19. Siegel, L. & Lipka, O. (2009). The definition of learning disabilities:
who is the individual with learning disabilities? In G. Reid, A.
Fawcett, F. Manis& L. Siegel (Eds.) The Sage Dyslexia Handbook.
Sage Publications.
Snow, K. (2003). People First Language document. Self published at
250 Sunnywood Lane, Woodland Park, CO. 80863.
Squire, Mike (1994). ―Labels: A Liability of Disability.‖
www.jtsma.org.uk/tributemikesquirelbls.html
TASH Newsletter October 1998 Vol. 24 #10: Effects of Labeling.