The Pros And Cons Of Diagnostic Labeling

The Dilemma of Diagnostic Labeling
Special education has taken on a very distinct look compared to 30 years ago. Today, most learning disabled students are mainstreamed into classes with other students. While some school experts believe that the labeling of students with a learning disability causes social challenges for those students, proper testing and labeling are essential for struggling students to receive the help they need to overcome and better cope with their challenges.
The use of disability labels stimulated debate and concern in schools. Around 1975, special education in the United States evolved from institutions into the regular classrooms. Those changes have forced the public education system to develop specialized programs
separate from general education. More changes were forthcoming in the education for students with disabilities via the ACT IDEA 1990,1992,1997, which mandated that “students with disabilities be provided an appropriate education designed to meet their unique needs”. Other laws came later that stated only severely disabled students should be separated from the general population and placed in their own distinctive classes. The dividing line depended on the nature and severity of the disability that was diagnosed.
Essentially, the ultimate goal was to “merge general and special education to create a more unified system of education” (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Will, 1986).
The overall consensus among experts at the time was that great educators can lead all students and provide them all with a solid education no matter their learning challenges. This is far from the truth, as teachers often struggle with fears and worries regarding the education of special needs students.
A valid concern that one camp brings to the table is that once a student has been categorized with a disability, this information will follow him or her for the rest of the school career. However, not diagnosing, labeling, and placing in a proper class can create a disadvantage for the student because teachers may lower expectations. Furthermore, they may not know how to adequately handle any misbehavior stemming from the disabilities, let alone understand the root of the
disability.
Another concern expressed by the aforementioned camp is that labels send a clear and strong message, and sometimes it is not a positive one.
The message sent can be that the student is the problem and not the disability, which can cause the student to feel guilt and shame. They also claim that the “use of disability labels by special education professionals and associated fields often focuses on the negative aspects of the disability instead of on the child’s strengths” (Blum & Bakken, 2010). Another enormous issue they maintain is that diagnostic labels are unreliable because educational evaluations are filled with quirks. Nonetheless, James M. Kauffman, a professor at the University of Virginia and scholar in the field of special education, says, “Special education must be improved not discontinued. Labeling students helps to determine eligibility on special education and place them in the right classes” (Kauffman 1999b). Kauffman also contended that the worries about negative effects of formal labeling have no grounds in research evidence. Pretending the disability does not exist in no way helps the student’s confidence, as some believe. There are always disabilities among the students. Teachers will have the choice to make the labels that describe the student's disability either positive or
negative.
It seems obvious that labeling a disability is beneficial for a student because the student will get the best treatment for the disability, once it is pinpointed. Many students with a learning challenge are suffering with self-esteem issues before labeling even happens due to poor performance in one or more classes. By receiving a proper label based on testing and observation, the student can get the most help in order to perform better in school.
Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding the labeling of students is hard to break because some see labeling as a sociological model that inadvertently categorizes an individual as “different” in a negative way. The word “different” creates a “potential distorted reality for those who bear the label, as well as their teachers, parents, and peers” (Hebding and Glick, 1987). Also, Hebding and Glick claim that a new identity, social role, and expectations get assigned to a labeled individual by his or her peer group. This peer group then treats that individual according to those new presumptions, thereby, reinforcing the label and influencing all interactions with that person in the future.
On the other hand, supporters in this debate of labeling believe that “labels serve useful purposes with a net positive result” (Keogh 1987). Keogh also opines that the labels serve as a vehicle for advancement in disability awareness, a tool that helps to ensure adequate services, and an instrument that points to the need for further scientific study. Supporters also argue that the sooner the better for labels, as early intervention diminishes the need to label children as learning disabled. Statistics from Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 show that individuals gained significant improvement when early intervention happened (IDEIA, 2004). In summary, learning disability labels sometimes generate unfavorable expectations, in addition to negative stereotypes, attitudes, and social challenges, but all in all, the benefits hugely outweigh the disadvantages. With proper testing, diagnosis, and placement, struggling students receive the help they need to overcome and better cope with their challenges.