teacher/therapist. The within‐child deficit model makes for an easy and effective excuse.
Since most people are not oriented to the complexity of human meaning making and the importance of systems theory when addressing learning and communicative processes (MacWhinney, 1998; Nelson, 2003; Perkins, 2005; Thelen & Smith, 1998; van Geert, 1998), they are often willing to localize problems in the individual; it is simply easier to do so. To ignore the complexity is often soothing even if it is misdirected. The problem with using the label to reduce the complexity, of course, is that poor results ensue. Even if teachers or rehabilitative professionals are dedicated to the remediation process, their best attempts at assistance often are misguided and ineffective. In fact, research has documented that labeling with a focus on an intrinsic deficit model typically results in overlooking various environmental factors that may have generated or exacerbated the difficulty (Barsky & Boros, 1995; Boxer, Challen, & McCarthy, 1991; Brown, 1995; Coles, 1987; Dudley‐Marling & Dippo, 1995). As Brechin (1999) discussed, “If the whole problem, by definition, lies with the individual [via a label], then our understandings and interventions start and stop with the individual” (p. 1, original emphasis).
Labeling as a process is often discussed within the sociological literature and it is frequently linked with assessment. This is due to the fact that most test development was designed for selection purposes (Glaser & Silver, 1994), that is, to determine who should be admitted to and benefit from what educational opportunity (Carroll, 1997; Damico, 2019; Glaser & Silver, 1994; Lohman, 1997). To create divisions for selection, however, a label must be supplied. Consequently, labels often become the handmaidens of societal biases and prejudices. Within this function, labeling has particularly damaging consequences. Assessment and the resultant labels assigned to many students are often used to create a kind of social stratification system, a way to keep people in their place (Artiles, Higareda, Rueda, & Salazar, 2005; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Cummins, 2000; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ruiz‐de‐Velasco & Fix, 2000). This labeling process and its resultant placements are a reflection of how power and control is exerted in assessment to fulfill societal roles of cultural and social reproduction (Abberley, 1987; Apple, 1982; Kavale & Forness, 1998; Loseke, 1999). The assignment of a label and the various consequences play a key role in cultural reproduction and social stratification (Gipps, 1999). In his discussion of the impact of assessment and labeling theory in education in the United Kingdom, Broadfoot (1996) stated,
… because assessment procedures are so closely bound up with the legitimization of particular educational practices, because they are the overt means of communication from schools to society and … the covert means of that society’s response in the form of control, assessment may be the most important of the three message systems. Assessment procedures may well be the system that determines curriculum and pedagogy and, hence, social reproduction. (p. 87–88)
Within the realm of special education, labeling students and placing them in remedial programs—even if only for a half an hour a day—effectively removes these students from general schooling and places them in groups of students of similar ability for instructional purposes; they are socially isolated (Connor & Ferri, 2005; Fine, 1991; Gelb & Mizokawa, 1986; Gill & Maynard, 1995; Messick, 1980).
Social isolation and stratification often prevent access to equal educational and occupational opportunity. Research in literacy employing a critical interpretivist frame, for example, has found that attaching labels like “intellectually disabled,” “mentally retarded” and “dyslexic” significantly reduces the expectations and opportunities for individuals to become literate or to use their literacy skills to improve with practice (Kliewer, Biklen, & Kasa‐Hendrickson, 2006). Similarly, Rapley (2004), employing discursive psychology, explored the actual process of limiting opportunity for those individuals labeled “intellectually disabled” through moment‐by‐moment interaction with care staff and other professionals. This tendency to limit access due to expectations formed by labels is one of the most damaging consequences of this diagnostic process. In education, those professionals who both assign the labels through assessment, and then help prevent access through various means (special education placement, tracking, limiting extracurricular activities) are known as “gatekeepers” (Deyhle, 1987; Mehan, Hertwick, & Meihls, 1986; Ogbu, 1978; Schuster & Butler, 1986; Thoits, 2005). The term is uncomfortably accurate in many instances.
Finally, labels can have negative consequences for one’s psychological health and self‐image. While there are many instances of labeling helping to define individuals and letting them develop a workable self‐image based upon identification with a disability label (see Section 1.2), an opposite reaction can also occur. Research in “labeling theory” (Heise, 2007; Kroska & Harkness, 2008; Link et al., 1989; Rosenfeld, 1997) demonstrates that when individuals are labeled, the societal and cultural ideas associated with the disability in general and the label in particular become personally relevant to that individual and often foster negative self‐feeling. These feelings can have a profound impact on the labeled individual.
1.5 Concerns with the Process of Diagnostic Labeling
Given the fact that labeling has a long history of application in education, medicine, and the social and psychological sciences, that it arises out of the human propensity to generalize, stereotype and construct meaning, and that there appear to be both positive and negative consequences of labeling, the process is well ingrained in our sociocultural context. Progressively, however, as social science addresses complexity and has established developmental and epistemological orientations that are less positivistic in nature and focused more on social constructivism (Bruner, 1986, 1990, 1991; Danziger, 1990; Gergen & Davis, 1985; Goodman, 1978; Iran‐Nejad, 1995; O’Connor, 1998; Shuell, 1986), there have been growing concerns about the process of labeling. Labeling is seen as too subjective and vague, especially given its power in the spheres of social action. Foremost in the litany of concern is the linkage of labeling with assessment.
As a widespread practice, assessment is a fairly recent phenomenon (Broadfoot, 1994; Gipps, 1999). In the context of the attempt to develop a more scientific foundation for the discipline of psychology at the beginning of the twentieth century, assessment was seen as a way to demonstrate both scientific principles and practical utility (Gould, 1996; Mills, 1998). When psychometric theory was developed in tandem with the creation of intelligence testing (Bernstein, 1996; Goldstein, 1996; Lohman, 1997), there was an allure of the objective and scientific. This was a time of behaviorism and a belief in positivism and it was taken for granted that the assessment of human abilities, skills, and proficiencies could be effectively accomplished through the development of test instruments. The use of quantification and statistical formulae helped advance this perception. However, to construct testing with sufficient statistical power, especially regarding reliability indices, a strict standardization was required that impacted test design, item selection, administrative procedures, and scoring criteria of the tests; these efforts to boost technical reliability often had a negative effect on the construct validity and the practical and clinical impact of the tests (Cronbach, 1988; Damico, 1991; Goldstein, 1996; Lohman, 1997; Messick, 1984). This resulted in ineffective assessment tools that were typically perceived to be valid and effective.
In remedial public education in the United States, the major regulatory instrument is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Because of continued disenchantment with the traditional approach to special education, the recent IDEA re‐authorization discussed several obstacles to implementing effective special education services (Hamayan et al., 2013; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). Among the obstacles cited were that implementation of the Act has been impeded by a disproportionately high number of referrals and placements of “minority children” in special education, and by the application of discrepancy models using inappropriate tests that often result in these disproportionate placements. Consequently, regulations have been modified to address the needs of the students and to determine eligibility for special education services; pre‐referral interventions (a kind
