labeling the learning disabled child: : the social ecology of educational practice

Amer. J . Orthopsvchiiit. 5 2 ( I ) , Jnnuciry 1982

LABELING THE LEARNING DISABLED CHILD: The Social Ecology of Educational Practice

Ray C. Rist, Ph.D., and Jan E. Harrell, Ph.D.

The labeling of a child as “learning disabled” is a social event. The context within which this label is given is little understood, yet it does have an impact on the justification and process by which the label is given. The ecology of the labeling process and the implications f o r educational practice are examined.

ew debates in recent years within F American education have been argued with such passion or intensity as that of what ought to be the appropriate education for “special populations” of children. Whether one focuses on the situation of the physically handicapped, the non-English speaking, the emotion- ally disturbed, the poverty stricken, or those who give evidence of being learning disabled, the proscriptions are plen- tiful and the consensus nil. It is to the situation of this last group of children, those defined as learning disabled, that the analysis of this paper is addressed. Of particular concern will be a critical examination of why and how it is that

some children come to receive this label, and selected consequences for them once the label is bestowed.

There is a further agenda for this paper as well. The lack of theoretical explication of the growing body of research data on the origins, characteristics, implications, and treatment of the learning disabled child has resulted in a distinctly atheoretical approach to the phenomenon. It is not to be denied that there has been a flurry of research, but the hiatus between this research and any broader theoretical framework has meant that the concept of the learning disabled child has remained simply that-a concept. The research is

Presented ( i t the 1981 unnircil meeting of the Americcrn 0rthop.sychicitric Associtrtion, in N e w York. Authors ure l i t : Institute for Progrcim Evuliiation, U . S . Genertrl Accounting OfJce. Wtrshington. D.C. (Rist); und University of Aritonci (Hurrel l ) . Views e.rpre.s.\ed (ire solely those of the ciuthors cind no support or endorsement hv the U.S . Generul Accountin,c Office or the United Stcries Congress is intended or should be inferred.

146 0002-9432/82/010146-15$00 75 01982 American Orth,)psychiatric Association, Inc

RlST AND HARRELL 147

theoretically stymied. Into the vacuum have combined to generate a multitude of terms have stepped both the technicians in- and definitions concerning learning disabilities.

terested in the refinement of minute methodological measurements and the interventionists bent on remediation. Theoretical advancement involving social and contextual variables has been slow and limited in scope.

THE CONCEPT: AN ELUSIVE ONE

A number of scholars have argued that the concept of the “learning disabled child’ is so vague as to have no intellectual coherence. The conceptual parameters are so permeable that different attributes, behaviors, perceptions, and cognitive styles can be added or subtracted at will, say these critics. As Divoky noted in her highly controversial article of 1974,19 “The truth is that the learning disabled are whomever the diagnosticians want them to be.” The result, say these critics, is that the application of the label of “learning disabled” is ad hoc, situational, and idiosyncratic. I t is no wonder that there has arisen considerable skepticism both within and outside the field of special education regarding the intellectual in- tegrity and appropriateness of applying this label.14* 3 5 * 5 9

This situation is exacerbated since, among the professional groups most directly involved, there has never been a consensus as to what is entailed by the use of the label. Had there been internal consensus, the task would have then been one of explaining and articulating for other audiences the rationale for the various aspects of the definition. But, as Mercer et dS9 described it:

The generic nature of learning disabilities, the multidisciplinary contributions, and high interest

Cruick~hank’~ noted that there are more than 40 different terms used to describe essentially the same child. Kass4’ out- lined five definitions of learning disability that evolved within a six-year period in the mid-l960s, and Vaughn and Hodgesso presented ten established definitions of the term.

Amidst this welter of conflicting definitions, perceptions, and clarifications of the notion of the learning disabled, there occurred a legislative event of singular importance-the passage of the Children with Specific Learning Dis- abilities Act of 1969, PL 91-230. This Act, passed as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of 1964, for the first time established a federal definition that would guide the expenditure of federal funds for the education of learning disabled children. This specific group of children was defined in the Act as follows:

Children with special learning disabilities exhibit a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using spo- ken or written language. These may be manifested in disorders of listening, thinking, talking, reading, writing, spelling, or arithmetic. They include conditions which have been referred to as perception handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunc- tion, dyslexia, developmental aphasia, etc. They do not include learning problems which are due primarily to visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, to mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or to environmental disadvantage.

The ramifications of this Act were not only evident in the form and content of programs that were receiving federal funds; in the wake of its passage, state after state began to formulate definitions so as to establish guidelines for the

148 LABELING THE LEARNING DISABLED

funding of their own programs.s9 In the intervening years, efforts have contin- ued in order to seek more precision and clarity for the concept. In 1977, the federal government, through the U.S. Of- fice of Education, again sought clarifi- cation of what constituted a learning disability. The definition was not ex- plicit, but sought to clarify the areas where learning disabilities occur. The seven areas as defined by the Bureau of the Educationally Handicapped (Fed- erul Register, December 29, 1977) were: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematics reasoning. The seven essentially fall into three categories: I ) receptive and expressive language; 2 ) reading and writing; and 3) mathematics.

I t is only to be anticipated that the federal guidelines have not been univer- sally accepted. As consensus was not present prior to the 1969 Act or the 1977 categorization, it still is not present now. Indeed, the competition among different definitions continues un- abated. Myers and Hammil(" provided the following list of areas in which learning disability might occur: memory, attention, symbolization, perception, emotionality, and motor activity. Other efforts have been made by Kirk and Gallagher.4'

The efforts of Kirk and Gallagher in 1979 are perhaps the most sober and cogent to date. Their approach has been to define the concept, not by providing a long shopping list of potential problem areas, but rather by stating what they believe to be the necessary precondi- tions to any application of the label itself. Their point is that while a child

might demonstrate difficulties in any one or more of the seven areas listed in the federal definition, that is not sufficient to tag the child with the label of learning disabled. They have posited three criteria that must be met prior to any diagnosis. Kirk and Gallagher's three criteria are: I ) a discrepancy between abilities or between potential and achievement: 2) an exclusion factor; and 3) a special education criterion. (p. 284)

The merit of this approach is that it takes into account the context in which the behavior and performance of the child are being observed. By focusing on the discrepuncy criterion, they suggest that an unexplained disparity between a child's academic achievement and other abilities or achievements, or a discrepancy between various aspects of development ( e . g . , perception, visual motor ability. attention, memory, etc.), is a necessary precondition for any consid- eration of the label of learning disabled. Similarly, the exrlirsion principle suggests that any difficulties in learning that could be explained by mental retardation, auditory or visual impairment, emotional disturbances, or lack of opportunity to learn would obviate the label of learning disabled. Finally, Kirk and Gallagher noted that children with learning disabilities are those who re- quire special educational services for their own development. While the first two principles are specific to the child, the third requires a response by the community. They have argued that the speciul education criterion is necessary since:

. . . it requires that, following a diagnosis of discrepancy and exclusions, the diagnostician must specify a special remedial program needed by the


child. Without that criterion we will just be labeling a child without specifying the individualized educational program needed. Labeling alone is not special e d u ~ a t i o n . ~ '

Indeed, labeling alone is not special education. But even with the efforts of Kirk and Gallagher, there is still considerable neglect of the notion of how it is that the label comes to be applied. Kirk and Gallagher imply that, so long as their necessary conditions are met, the pinpointing of some particular learning or performance problem is then a sufficient justification for the application of the label.

What is needed in this conceptual cul-de-sac is to retrace the process backwards to its origins, to the point at which one or more adults first perceives something "uncommon" or "different" about a child, which in turn would lead one to consider the label of learning disabled. When one examines closely the various aspects of the Kirk and Gal- lagher argument, there are still areas of considerable discretion and ambiguity. For example, what of those situations in school districts where there are not sufficient funds to support the services needed for every child who displays a cluster of behavior and performance in- dicators that would justify the label of learning disabled'? While there might well be the meeting of the discrepancy and exclusions principles, the inability to provide sufficient services would necessarily mean that the special education criterion could not be met. Therefore, by the logic of Kirk and Gal- lagher, although the child would still be considered learning disabled, it is un- likely that the child would be diagnosed as such. Bryan and Bryan'O suggested much the same when they wrote in 1975:

However small or great the dangers involved in labeling children as learning disabled, it is necessary. indeed critical, to set limits to the population to be studied and assisted. With limitedresourc.es, limited numbers of children con receive cr.s.sis- ttrnc'e. [emphasis added1

The implication of this is that the inci- dence of learning disability in a community is determined by the amount of remedial treatment that community is willing to support. Much the same analysis has been posited for mental ill- ness,'O* 74 juvenile delinquency,6* 29* 39

and a l c o h ~ l i s m . ~ ~ Pursuing such a line of analysis suggests the conclusion that there is no "fixed amount" of the condition. Rather, it is variable and situational, depending upon variations in diagnosis and in the resources of the community.

APPLICATION OF THE LABEL: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

If the concept of learning disability is diffuse and controversial, then so too must be the conditions and circumstances in which the label of learning disabled is applied. Vague concepts do not allow for crisp diagnoses.

But amidst this ambiguity, there are social processes at work. Children are labeled, teachers and other school per- sonnel do respond, and there are outcomes from these efforts, successful or otherwise. To understand them as more than a conglomeration of isolated and individual episodes necessitates a theoretical perspective. What follows is an attempt to provide such a theoretical framework within which to examine the labeling of children as learning disabled. The framework is interactional in its orientation, positing that the application of the label to the child is the result of a


series of negotiated interactions among the variously involved individuals. Spe- cifically, the emergence of lubeling theory as an explanatory framework for the study of social deviance appears to be applicable to the study of the condition of the learning disabled as well. Among the major contributions to the development of labeling theory are those of B e ~ k e r , ~ . B r ~ a d h e a d , ~ Le-

48. 49 Douglas,2'* 2 2 K i t s u ~ e , ~ ~ L ~ f l a n d . ~ ~ M a t z a , ~ ~ ~ ss S ~ h e f f , ~ ~ S c h ~ r , ' ~ Scott and and Rubington and Wine berg.

The labeling perspective will be suggested as a legitimate framework from which to analyze social processes influencing the educational experience of that certain group of children labeled as learning disabled, and the contributions of such processes to their success or failure in school. This perspective becomes, then, an inteructionist orientation aimed at expanding the biological/ neurological theories of educational outcomes for those designated as learning disabled. While the latter two positions both place ultimate causality for success or failure outside the school, the labeling approach allows for an examination of what, in fact, is happening within schools. Thus, labeling theory would call our attention, for example, to the various evaluative mechanisms (both formal and informal) operant in schools, to the ways in which schools nurture and support such mechanisms, how students react, what the outcomes are for interpersonal interaction based on how these mechanisms have evalu- ated individual students, and how, over t ime, the consequences of having a cer-

tain evaluative tag influences the options available to a student within a school.' This is not to exclude biological explanations of origin, but, rather, to broaden the theoretical framework to examine both educational processes and outcomes for learning disabled children. What follows is, first, a summary of a number of the key aspects of labeling theory as it has been most fully devel- oped in the sociological literature; and, second, an attempt to integrate the research on the concept of the learning disabled with the conceptual framework of labeling theory. Finally, the implications of this synthesis are explored both for future research and theoretical development.

LABELING THEORY PERSPECTIVE

Those who have used labeling theory have been concerned with the study of why people are labeled, and who it is that labels them as individuals who have committed one form or another of deviant behavior.* In sharp contrast to the predominant approaches for the study of deviance, there is little concern in labeling theory with the motivational and characterological nature of the person who committed the act that pre- cipitated the labeling.

Deviance is understood, not as a quality of the person or created by personal actions, but instead as a creation ofgroup definitions and reactions. It is a social judgment imposed by a social audience. As Becker"' has argued: The central fact ofdeviance is that it is created by society. I do not mean this in the way it is ordinar- ily understood, in which the causes of deviance are located in the social situation of the deviant, or

~~

* This section and the next are taken largely from an earlier work.69


the social factors, which prompted his action. 1 mean, rather, that social groups create deviants by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view,de\,itrnce i s not the 41ttrlit.v of the trct

the person commits. hilt rcrther u conseyuenc'e of rhe trppliccrtion by others of rules crnd .\trnctions t o ctn "oflender." The deiaiirnt i s one t o \cfhom the Itrhel hers been .sircce.~sfully crpplied. Devictnt be- htr\.ior i s hehtr\,ior thtrt people s o Itrhel. [emphasis added]

The labeling approach demands a shift in attention from a preponderant concern with the deviant individual to a major concern with the process by which the deviant label is applied. Again citing Becker:' The labeling approach sees deviance always and everywhere as a process and interaction between at least two kinds of people: those who commit (or who are said to have committed) a deviant act, and the rest of the society. perhaps divided into sev- eral groups itself. . . One consequence is that we become much more interested in the process by which deviants are defined by the rest of the society, than in the nature of the deviant act itself.

The important questions then, for Becker and others, are not of the sort that include, for example: Why do some individuals come to act out norm- violating behavior? Rather, the questions are of the following sort: Who applied the deviant label to whom? Whose rules shall prevail and be en- forced? Under what circumstances is the deviant label successfully or unsuc- cessfully applied'? How does a community decide what forms of conduct should be singled out for this kind of attention'? What forms of behavior do persons in the social system consider deviant, how do they interpret such behavior, and what are the consequences of these interpretations for their reactions to individuals who are seen as manifesting such behavior?2

The labeling perspective rejects any assumption that aclear consensus exists as to what constitutes a norm viola- t ion-or for that matter, what constitutes a norm-within a complex and highly heterogeneous society. What comes to be determined as deviance- and who comes to be determined as a deviant-is the result of a variety of social contingencies influenced by who has the power to enforce such determi- nations. Deviance is thus problematic and subjectively given. The case for making the societal reaction to rule- breaking a major independent variable in studies of deviant behavior has been succinctly stated by K i t s ~ s e : ~ ~ A sociological theory of deviance must focus spe- cifically upon the interactions which not only de- tine behaviors as deviant, but also organize and activate the application of sanctions by individuals, groups, or agencies. For in modern society, the socially significant differentiation of deviants from the non-deviant population is increasingly contingent upon circumstances of situation, place, social and personal biography, and the bureau- cratically organized activities of agencies of social control.

Traditional notions of who is a deviant and what causes the deviance are, from this perspective, necessarily reconsid- ered. By emphasizing the processual nature of deviance, any particular deviant is seen to be a product of being caught, defined, segregated, labeled, and stigmatized. This is one of the major thrusts of the labeling perspective: that

forces o f socicil control often uninten- tioncilly define certuin individuuls, through the stigmatizution c,f labeling, us deviant; thus, social reuctions to deviance further deviunt cureers. Erik- sonZh has even gone so far so to argue that a society will strive to maintain a certain level of deviance in order to help clarify group boundaries, provide


scapegoats, create outgroups that can be a source of furthering ingroup sol- idarity, and the like.

The idea that social control may have the paradoxical effect of generating more of the very behavior it is designed to eradicate was first elaborated upon by Tannenba~m.’~ He noted: The first dramatization of the “evir’ which sepa- rates the child but of his group . . . plays a greater role in making the criminal than perhaps any other experience . . . He now lives in a different world. He has been tagged . . . The person becomes the thing he is described as being.

Likewise, S ~ h u r ’ ~ has written: The societal reaction to the deviant, then, is vital to an understanding of the deviance itself and a major element in-if not the cause of-the deviant behavior.

The focus on outcomes of social control mechanisms has led labeling theorists to devote considerable attention to the workings of organizations and agencies that function ostensibly to rehabilitate the violator or in other ways draw this individual back into confor- mity. Their critiques of prisons, mental hospitals, training schools, and other people-changing institutions suggest the outcomes are frequently nearly the opposite of what they were theoretically organized to facilitate. Such institutions are seen as mechanisms by which opportunities to withdraw from deviance are sealed off from the deviant, stig- matization occurs, and a new identity as a social “outsider” is generated. There thus emerges on the part of the person so labeled a new view of himself which is one of being irrevocably deviant.

SOCIAL CONTEXT OF LABELING

Labeling theory can significantly en- hance our understanding of the process

of being defined as learning disabled by shifting our exclusive attention from the child to the judges of the child’s situation and to the forces that affect their judgment. Such judgments are critical, for a recurrent decision made in all societies, and particularly more frequent in ad- vanced industrial societies, is that an individual has or has not mastered some body of information, or, perhaps more basically, has or has not the capacity to master that information. These evaluations are made periodically as one moves through the institution of school; their consequences directly affect the opportunities to remain for an additional period. To be able to remain provides an option for mastering still a further body of information, and to be certified as having done so. As Illich38 has noted, it is in industrial societies where the perceived legitimate judges of such mastery have become restricted to those who carry the occupational role of ”teacher.” A major consequence of the profes- sionalization of the role of teacher has been the ability to claim as a near exclusive decision whether mastery of material has occurred. Such exclusionary decision-making enhances those in the role of “teacher“ as they alone come to possess the authority to provide certifi- cation for credential^.^^

Labeling theorists report that, in making judgments, persons may employ information drawn from a variety of sources. Further, even persons within the same profession (therapists, for example) may make divergent use of the same material in arriving at an evaluative decision on the behavior of an individual. Among the sources of information available to labelers, two appear primary: first-hand information obtained from face-to-face interaction with


the person they may ultimately label, and second-hand information obtained from other than direct interaction.

FACTORS INFLUENCING TEACHER EXPECTATIONS*

The corollary here to the activities of teachers should be apparent. Often- times, the evaluation by teachers of children whom they believe to be learning disabled is based on first-hand information gained through face-to-face interaction during the course of the time the teacher and student spent together in the classroom. But a goodly amount of information about the student which informs the teacher's evaluation is second-hand information. Comments from other teachers, test scores, prior report cards, permanent records, meetings with the parents, or evaluations from welfare agencies and psychological clinics are all potential infor- mational sources. In a variation of the first-hand or second-hand sources of information, Risth7 has suggested there are three key determinants of teacher evaluations: student's prior performance, social status characteristics, and present performance. Prior performance would include information from cumulative records (grades, test scores, notes from past teachers or counselors, and outside evaluators) while social status and performance would be inferred and observed in the on-going context of the classroom

The findings of Deutsch et L I I , ' ~ Gib- son,.'" G o s h and Glass,34 McPher- son,56 and Pequignoth4 all have demon-

strated the influence of standardized tests of intelligence and achievement on teacher's expectations. Goaldman,." in a review of the literature on the use of tests as a second-hand source of information for teachers, noted:

Although some of the research has been chal- lenged, there is a basis for the belief that teachers at all levels are prejudiced by information they receive about a student's ability or character.

Mehans7* s x has beenconcerned with the interaction between children who take tests and the teachers who administer them. He has suggested that testing is not the objective use of a measurement instrument, but the outcome of a set of interactional activities that are influenced by a variety of contingencies which ultimately manifest themselves in a reified "test score." According to Mehan: Standardized test performances are taken as an unquestioned, nonproblematic reflection of the child's underlying ability. The authority of the test to measure the child's real ability is accepted by both teachers and other school officials. Test re- sults are accepted without doubt a s the correct and valid document of the child's ability."

Characteristics of children such as sex and race are immediately apparent to teachers. Likewise, indications of status can be quickly inferred from grooming, style of dress, need for free lunches, information on enrollment cards, discussion of family activities by children, and visitation to the school by parents. An intriguing study was recently reported in this area by two sociologists, Clifford and Walster,'.' who described its substance as follows:

* In this analysis. the stress is placed on the role of the teacher, for, a s has been stipulated by the federal government in 1977. i t is only the teacher and one other person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations who are required to provide the designation of "learning disabled." Indeed, there is no requirement that a learning disability specialist necessarily be part of the process.65


Our experiment was designed to determine what effect a student's physical attractiveness has on a teacher's expectations of the child's intellectual and social behavior. Our hypothesis was that a child's attractiveness strongly influences his teachers' judgments: the more attractive the child, the more biased in his favor we expect teachers to be. The design required to test this hypothesis is a simple one: Teachers are given a standardized report card and an attached photograph. The report card includes an assessment of the child's academic performance as well as of his general social behavior. The attractiveness of the photos is experimentally varied. On the basis of this information, teachers are asked to state their expectations of the child's educational and social potential.

Based on the responses of 404 fifth grade teachers within the state of Missouri, Clifford and Walster concluded: There is little question but that the physical ap- pearance of a student affected the expectations of the teachers we studied. Regardless of whether the pupil is a b o y or girl, the child's physical attractiveness has an equally strong association with his teacher's reactions to him.

The variables of race and ethnicity have been documented as powerful factors in generating the expectations teachers hold of ~ h i l d r e n . ~ . 4 0 9 73 It has also been documented that teachers expect less of lower-class children than they do of middle-class chil-

large-scale study of the tracking system used in British schools, found that children who were clean, neatly dressed in nice clothing, and who came from what the teachers perceived as "better" homes, tended to be placed in higher tracks than their measured ability would predict. Further, when placed there they tended to stay and perform ac- ceptably. Mackler" studied schools in Harlem and found that children tended to stay in the tracks in which they were initially placed, and that such placement

dren.'. 17. 46, 67, 68 . 81. 82 Douglas 20 in a

was based on a variety of social consid- erations independent of measured ability. Doyle, Hancock and Kifer2' and Palardyh3 have shown teacher expectations for high performance in elementary grades to be stronger for girls than for boys.

The ongoing academic and interpersonal performance of the children may also serve as a potent source of expectations for teachers. Rowe7' found that teachers would wait longer for an an- swerfrom a student they believed to be a high achiever than from a student they believed to be a low achiever. Brophy and Good8 found that teachers were more likely to give perceived high- achieving students a second chance to respond to an initial incorrect answer; further, high achievers were praised more frequently for success and crit- icized less for failure.

It is well to reiterate the point: interaction implies behavior and choices being made by both parties. Individuals facing the prospect of receiving a new label imputing a systemic change in the definition of their selfhood may respond in any of a myriad number of ways to this situation. Likewise, the institu- tional definition of the person is neither finalized nor solidified until the end of the negotiation as to what precisely that label should be. But, in the context of a single student and family facing the authority and vested interests of a school administration and staff, the most likely outcome is that, over time, the student will increasingly move toward confor- mity with the label the institution seeks to establish. Good and Brophy32 have elaborated upon this process within the classroom as follows: I ) The teacher ex- pects specific behavior and achievement from particular students. 2 ) Be-


cause of these different expectations, the teacher behaves differently toward the different students. 3) This teacher treatment tells each student what behavior and achievement the teacher ex- pects; it affects the student’s self- concept, achievement motivation, and level of aspiration. 4) If this teacher treatment is consistent over time, and if the student does not actively resist or change it in some way, it will tend to shape the student’s achievement and behavior. High-expectation students will be led to achieve at high levels, while the achievement of low- expectation students will decline. 5 ) With time, the student’s achievement and behavior will conform more and more closely to the original expectation.

Point 4 in the above sequence makes the crucial inference that teacher expectations are not automatically self- fulfilling. For the expectations of the teacher to become realized, both the teacher and the student must move toward a pattern of interaction in which expectations are clearly communicated and the behavioral response is conson- ant with the expected patterns. But, as Good and Brophy? also noted: This does not always happen. The teacher may not have clear-cut expectations about a particular student, or his expectations may continually change. Even when he has consistent expectations, he may not necessarily communicate them to the student through consistent behavior. In this case, the expectation would not be self-fulfilling even if it turned out to be correct. Finally, the student himself might prevent expectations from becoming self-fulfilling by overcoming them or by resisting them in a way that makes the teacherchange them.

Yet, the critique of American education offered by such scholars as Henry?’ K a t ~ , ~ * Goodman,33 or Reimerhh suggests the struggle is un- equal between the teacher (and the in-

stitution a teacher represents) and the student. The vulnerability of children to the dictates of adults in positions of power above them leaves the negotia- tions as to what evaluative definition will be tagged on the children more often than not in the hands of the powerful. As Max Weber, himself, stated: to have power is to be able to achieve one’s ends, even in the face of resistance from others. When that resistance is manifested in school by children and is defined by teachers and administrators as truance, recalcitrance, unruliness, and hostility-or conversely defined as a lack of motivation, intellectual apathy, sullenness, passivity, or poor performance-the process is ready to be repeated and the options to escape further teacher definitions are increasingly removed.

CORRECTNESS OF THE LABEL

The haunting prospect in this entire analysis is that children are being incor- rectly labeled as learning disabled when in fact they are not. The inability of teachers to differentiate between those categories indicative of a learning disability and other categories is something known and documented in the lit- e r a t ~ r e . ~ ” hZ Further, there is considerable evidence, some of which has been reviewed here and much more that has not, that suggests teachers make decisions about the capabilities and expected performances of children on any number of subjective criteria. A key criterion for the ittr-ibution of the label of learning disabled IF that there exists a discrepancy between actual and potential performance. But who is it that makes the evaluations of what is actual versus potential and on what criteria? OLeary“* made the point that there


exist no standard means to assess cognitive behavior. Thus what makes for a discrepancy is based, in the beginning, on a set of evaluations that are not uni- versally shared or accepted-which is another way of saying that the discretion and latitude that the teacher possesses when attributing the label of learning disabled to a child is extensive.*

Kornblau and Keogh45 recently at- tempted to introduce key aspects of attribution theory to this process of definition. They stated that the manner in which teachers define "teachable" pupils is both personal and nonempiri- cal. Further, it is this inchoate notion that then serves as a standard or model against which children and their individual attributes are compared. While all of this can very easily lead into metaphysical speculation by the teacher, the point is that the manner in which judgments are made about children and their futures is one that is neither rigorous nor easily defensible.19

The data in the area of the learning disabled are sparse. However, in other areas of study regarding exceptional children, there is more than sufficient evidence to document comparable processes. To extrapolate to the situation of the learning disabled, therefore, is both informative and permissible. Mercer's study of the mentally retarded,h0 the edited volume of research by H ~ b b s , ' ~ and the recent review by MacMillan and Meyers,s2 all show the impact that so- cioeconomic, religious, racial, and professional attributes of the labelers have upon the decisions they make. And adding ambiguity to ambiguity, there is

just as considerable data demonstrating that the attributes of the children influence labels also. The end result is that both the labelers and the children bring into the situation perceptions, attributes, prior experiences, professional expectations, etc. that come to bear upon the definition of the situation. The end resirlt is the socicil construction of ci

label.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE LABEL

While this section might easily be ex- panded into a paper on its own, suffice it to say here that there are a number of consequences, some detrimental and some beneficial, that occur to children who are labeled as learning disabled. The detrimental aspects associated with the label include the solidification of the following forms of interaction: less positive classroom interaction with the t e a ~ h e r , ~ ' more teacher criticism,I2 and teachers holding more negative stereotypes which in turn influenced the judgments of the performance of learning disabled children,78 reduced levels of interaction with parents,28 increased levels of peer rejection," and, perhaps most devastating, the characteristic of "learned helplessness" on the part of the child as a result of the self-attribution and internalization of the label first applied by others.14

But, on the opposite side, there are benefits as well. Children in the classroom who are not performing well, who do not achieve at a level to which others think they might are then given special attention and efforts are made to

* To reiterate: Though there is a requirement that an additional person be involved in the diagnosisofthe child, the weight o f evidence to be presented comes from the observations and interactions of the child with the teacher.


study the origins and reasons for the gap between potential and actual performance. Further, there can emerge through this process a heightened awareness by the teacher that learning disabled children are in need of special pedagogical assistance, thus expanding the demands on the teacher (which are hopefully met) and responding in new ways to the child.ls For the parents, the presence of a label can be an important factor in coming to better understand why their child behaves in the way that he or she does. A label can stabilize a situation by providing a rationale, a logic that the parents then can attach to the performance of the child. Further, through acquisition of the label, there is affirmed the notion that something is in need of attention and response- whether it be a support group for the parents, additional services for the child, or increased academic achievement through better instructional and pedagogical assistance.

While the lists of both costs and benefits could go on, in the end it should be clear that there are not necessarily heroes and villains in this tale. Rather, what emerges is a situational response to the behavior of a child that can have both adverse and positive outcomes. The concern we express here is that the costs appear so much more easily and are well documented. The benefits are less evident and not as easily observed or understood. This persuades us to urge caution and restraint. Tacking on a label to a situation that is not well understood or can only be assessed with im- precise diagnostic tools is risky. In the rush to label, it is both unfortunate and ironic that what is being done ostensibly for the "good of the child" may, in fact, be producing quite the opposite effect.

POSTSCRIPT: ON FUTURE RESEARCH

The singular contribution of the labeling perspective to the study of educational outcomes for children labeled as learning disabled is the provision of a model for delineating and understanding the processes underlying those outcomes. The detailing over time of the interactional patterns that lead to changes in self-definition and behavior within classrooms, family, and peer groups is sadly lacking in most all the research to date.

To extend the research on the educational experiences of those students who are labeled learning disabled by teachers, we need a theoretical framework that can clearly isolate the influences and effects of certain kinds of teacher reactions o n certain types of students, producing certain typical outcomes. The labeling perspective appears particularly well-suited for this expansion of both the research and theoretical development by offering the basis for analysis at either a specific or more general level. With the former, for example, there are areas of investigation related to I ) types of students perceived by teachers as prone to being learning disabled; 2) the kinds of reactions, based on their expectations, teachers have to this group; 3 ) the effects of specific teacher reactions on specific student outcomes; and 4 ) the extent of correct versus incorrect perceptions about the condition of being learning disabled. At a more general level, fruitful lines of in- quiry might include I ) the outcomes of the application of various remediation strategies ( i . e . , the "targeting" question of what works best for whom): 2 ) the influences of factors such as social class and race on the expectations teachers hold for learning disabled children: 3 )


how and why labels do emerge in schools, as well as the phenomenologi- cal and structural meanings that are attached to them; and 4 ) whether there are means by which to modify or minimize the effects of school labeling processes on students through developing support networks, different classroom ar- rangements, and the training of teachers.

Labeling theory provides a conceptual framework by which to understand the processes of transforming attitudes into behavior and the outcomes of having done so. To be able to detail the dynamics and influences within schools by which some children come to see themselves as bright and articulate and act as if they are, and to detail how others come to see themselves as help- less and inarticulate and act accord- ingly, provides in the final analysis an opportunity to intervene so as to expand the numbers of winners and diminish the numbers of losers. For that reason above all others, labeling theory merits our attention.

REFERENCES 1. A D E L M A N , A . 1980. The not so specific learn-

ing disability population. Acad. Ther. 6: 117- 123.

2. AKERS, R . 1973. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.

3. BECKER, H . 1952. Social class variations in the teacher-pupil relationship. J . Ed. Sociol. 25:45 1-465.

4 . BECKER, H . 1%3. Outsiders. Free Press. New York.

5 . BECKER. H . 1964. The Other Side. Free Press, New York.

6. BECKER, H . 1967. Whose side are we on? SOC. Prob. 14(2):239-247.

7. BROADHEAD, R . 1974. A theoretical critique of the societal reaction approach to deviance. Pacific Sociol. Rev. 17:287-312.

8. BROPHV, J . A N D GOOD. T . 1970. Teachers' communications of differential expectations

for children's classroom performance: some behavioral data. J . Ed. Psychol. 61:365-374.

9. BROWN, B . 1968. The Assessment of Self- Concept Among Four Year Old Negro and White Children: A Comparative Study Using the Brown IDS Self-concept Reference Test. Institute for Developmental Studies, New York.

10. B R Y A N , T . A N D B R Y A N , J . 1975. Understanding Learning Disabilities: Alfred Press, New York.

1 1 . B R Y A N , J . A N D PERLMUTTER, B . 1979. Im- mediate impressions of LD children by female adults. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 230-88.

1979. Interactions of first-grade teachers with learning disordered children. J. Learn. Dis- abil. 12:255-261.

13. C L I F F O R D , M . A N D WALSTER. E. 1973. The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociol. Ed. 46:248-258.

14. C R U I C K S H A N K , w . 1972. Some issues facing the field of learning disability. J . Learn. Dis- abil. 5:380-388.

15. D'ALONZO, B . A N D W I S E M A N , D. 1978. Actual and desired roles of the high school learning disability resource teacher. J . Learn. Disabil. 1 I :63-70.

16. DAVIDSON, H. A N D L A N G , G . 1%0. Children's perceptions of teachers' feelings toward them. J . Exper. Ed. 29: 107-1 18.

17. DEUTSCH, M . 1963. The disadvantaged child

12. C H A P M A N , R . , LARSEN, S. A N D PARKER, R.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22 I

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

and the learning process. In Education in De- pressed Areas, H. Passow, ed. Teachers Col- lege Press, New York. DEUTSCH, M . ET A L . 1964. Guidelines for testing minority group children, J. SOC. Issues 20: 129-145. D i v o K Y , D . 1974. Education's latest victim: the LD kid. Learning 3:20-25. DOUGLAS, J . 1964. The Home and the School. MacGibbon and Kee. London. DOUGLAS, J . 1971. The American Social Order. Free Press, New York. DOUGLAS, J . 1972. Deviance and Re- spectability. Basic Books, New York.

Teachers' perceptions: do they make a dif- ference? Presented to the American Educa- tional Research Association. DWECK, c . 1977. Learned helplessness and negative evaluation. UCLA Educator I9:44-49. E D G A R , D. 1974. The Competent Teacher. Angus and Robertson, Sydney, Australia. ERIKSON, K . 1966. Wayward hr i tans . John Wiley, New York. F R E E M A N , M . A N D BECKER, R . 1979. Com- petencies for professionals in LD: an analysis

DOY1.E. W . , HANCOCK, G . A N D KIFER, E. 1971.


of teacher perceptions. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 2:70-79.

1979. The home environment in the assessment of learning disabilities. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 239-5 I .

29. G I B B O N S , D . A N D J O N E S , J . 1975. The Study of Deviance. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

30. GIBSON, t i . 1965. Aptitude tests. Science 149583,

31. G O A L D M A N , 1.. 1971. Counselingmethodsand techniques: the use of tests. In The Encyclo- pedia of Education, L. Deighton, ed. Macmil- Ian, New York.

32. GOOD. T. A N D B R O P H Y . J . 1973. Looking in Classrooms. Harper and Row, New York.

33. GOODMAN, P. 1964. Compulsory Mis- Education. Random House, New York.

34. G O S L I N , D . A N D G I A S S . D . 1976. The social effects of standardized testing on American elementary schools. Sociol. Ed. 40: 115-131.

35. H A M M I L L , D . A N D ILARSEN. s. 1974. The effec- tiveness of psycholinguistics training. Except. Child 41:s-14.

36. H E N R Y , J . 1964. Culture Against Man. Ran- dom House, New York.

37. HOBBS, N . 1975. Issues in the Classification of Children. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

38. II.LICH, I . 1971. Deschooling Society. Harper and Row, New York.

39. IRWIN, J . 1970. The Felon. Prentice-Hall, En- glewood Cliffs. N.J.

40. JACKSON, ti. A N D COSCA. c . 1974. The in- equality of educational opportunity in the Southwest: an observational study of ethni- cally mixed classrooms. Amer. Ed. Res. J. I1:219-229.

41. KASS, c . 1969. Introduction to learning disabilities. Seminars Psychiat. I :240-244.

42. KA.rz, M. 1971. Class, Bureaucracy and Schools. Praeger, New York.

Exceptional Children. Houghton, Mifflin, New York.

44. K I T S U S E . J . 1964. Societal reaction to deviant behavior: problems of theory and method. I n The Other Side, H. Becker, ed. Free Press, New York.

45. K O R N B I . A L J . B . A N D K E O C ~ H , B . 1980. Teachers' perceptions and educational decisions. New Directions for Exceptional Children 1:87- 101.

46. I .EACOCK, E. 1%9. Teaching and Learning in City Schools. Basic Books, New York.

Hill, New York. 48. LEMERT. E . 1972. Human Deviance, Social

Problems and Social Control. Prentice-Hall.

28. F R E U N D . J . , BRADl.EY, R. A N D C A L D W E L L , B .

43. KIRK. S . A N D GAL I AGHER, I. 1975. Educating

47. 1.EMERT. E. 1951. Social Pathology. McGraw

49. LEMERT, E . 1974. Beyond Mead: the societal reaction to deviance. SOC. Prob. 21:457-468.

SO. LOFLAND, J . 1%9. Deviance and Identity. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

51. M A C K L E R , B . 1969. Grouping in theghetto. Ed. Urban SOC. 2:80-95.

52. M A C M I L L A N , D. A N D MEYERS, c. 1979. Edu- cational labeling of handicapped learners. I n Review of Research in Education, D. Berliner, ed .

53. MADDOX-MCGINTY, A. 1979. Children's non- verbal behavior in the classroom and teachers' perceptions of teachability: an observational study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

54. MA'rZA, D . 1964. Delinquency and Drift. John Wiley, New York.

55. MATZA, D . 1%9. Becoming Deviant. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

56. MCPHERSON, G. 1966. The role-set of the elementary school teacher: a case study. Un- published doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

57. M E H A N , H . 1971. Accomplishing understanding in educational settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California. Santa Barbara.

58. M E H A N , H . 1974. Ethnomethodology and education. Presented to the Sociology of Educa- tion Association Conference, Pacific Grove, Calif.

1976. Definitions of learning disabilities used in the United States. J. Learn. Disabil. 9:376-386.

60. M E R C E R , J . 1973. Labeling the Mentally Re- tarded. University of California Press, Berk- eley.

for Learning Disabilities. John Wiley, New York.

62. O'LEARY, s. 1980. A response to cognitive training. Except. Ed. Quart. 1:89-94.

63. P A L A R D Y , J . 1%9. What teachers believe- what children achieve. Elementary Schl J. 69(7): 168-169; 370-374.

64. PEQUIGNOT, H . 1964. Lequation personnelle du juge. Semaine des Hopitaux.

65. POPLIN, M. A N D LARSEN, s. 1979. Current status of learning disability specialists. Learn. Disabil. Quart. 1:2-7.

66. REIMER, E . 1971. School is Dead. Doubleday, New York.

67. RIST, R. 1970. Student social class and teachers expectations: the self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Ed. Rev. 40:411- 450.

68. R I S T , R . 1973. The Urban School: A Factory

59. MERCER, C . , FORGNON, C . A N D WOLKING, W.

61. MYERS, P. A N D HAMMILL, D . 1976. Methods

Englewood Cliffs. N.J. for Failure. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass:


69. R I S T , R . 1977. On understanding the processes of schooling: the contributions of labeling theory. In Power and Ideology in Education, J . Karabel and A. Halsey, eds. Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford.

70. R O T H M A N , D . 1971. The Discovery of the Asylum. Little, Brown, Boston.

71. ROWE. M. 1%9. Science, silence and sanctions. Science and Children. 6:11-13.

72. R U B I N G T O N . E . A N D W E I N B E R G , M. 1973. De- viance: The lnteractionist Perspective. Mac- millan, New York.

73. R U B O V I T S , P. A N D M A E H R , M. 1973. Pygmalion black and white. J . Pers. SOC. Psychol. 2:210-218.

74. S C H E F F , i. 1966. Being Mentally I l l . Aldine, Chicago.

75. S C H U R , E . 1965. Crimes Without Victims. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

76. SCHUR, E . 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior. Harper and Row, New York.

77. SCOTT, R . A N D DOUGLAS, J . , eds. 1972. Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance. Basic Books, New York.

78. S U T H E R L A N D , J . A N D A L G O Z Z I N E . R . 1979. The L.D. label as a biasing factor in the visual motor performance of normal children. J . Learn. Disabil. 12:17-23.

munity. Columbia University Press, New York.

80. V A U G H N , R . A N D HODGES, L . 1973. A statisti- cal survey into a definition of learning disabilities: a search for acceptance. J . Learn. Disabil. 6:658-664.

81. W A R N E R , w . , H A V I G H U R S T , R . A N D LOEB, M. 1944. Who Shall Be Educated'! Harper and Row, New York.

82. W I L S O N , A . 1%3. Social stratification and academic achievement. In Education in De- pressed Areas, H. Passow, ed. Teachers Col- lege Press, New York.

79. T 4 N N E N B A U M . F . 1937. Crime and the COm-

For reprint: Key C . Kist, Ph.D.. S32X 41\1 Sr.. N.W. , Washinylon. D.C. 20015

labeling the learning disabled child: : the social ecology of educational practice

Documents