Post a brief description of the social problem that you would like to focus on for your Final Project.
Post a brief description of the social problem that you would like to focus on for your Final Project. The problem must align with the human services profession. Explain why you became concerned about this problem and whether you have experience with it as an advanced human services professional practitioner. Then, explain how this problem has been framed in the past with legacy language that might be off-putting to the affected population(s). In a paragraph or less, reframe the problem using strength-based and people-first language as well as a metaphor. Refer to steps 1 through 3 in Tapping Into the Power of Metaphors as a guide .
(THE SOCIAL PROBLEM I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON FOR MY FINAL PROJECT IS THE LGBTQ+ POPULATION BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. I BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM WHILE INTERNING AT AN LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY CENTER. THE ONLY EXPERIENCE I HAVE WITH IT AS AN ADVANCED HUMAN SERVICES PROFESSIONAL IS INTERNING AT AN LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY CENTER FOR TWO YEARS.
RESOURCES
https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/article/tapping-into-the-power-of-metaphors/
,
People-First Language, Equity, and Inclusion: How Do We Say It, and Why Does It Matter?
Laura Shipp Clarke Dusty Columbia Embury
Catherine Knight Jennifer Christensen
The evolution of language speaks to our values as a society and our understanding of each other as humans making contributions to society. Using people-first language demonstrates a respect for the personhood of people with disabilities, but often professionals are at a loss as to which words to use. This primer shares the ideology behind people-first language and includes a step-by-step guide to using people-first language for IDEA disability categories.
Keywords: people-first language, disability, appropriate language
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 74 2017, Volume 22, Number 1
Less than a decade ago, terms such as retarded, lame, suffering, and dumb were regularly used in professional settings to describe individuals with disabilities. Today, the general public and professionals often hear and use language that identifies individuals with disabilities by their disability (e.g., disabled athlete, disabled reporter, etc.) in both professional and community settings. Further compounding this issue is federal and state legislation that uses old terms and inappropriate language when defining persons with disabilities. This becomes problematic for many individuals with disabilities and their loved ones because language like this affects how professionals and community members think about and interact with individuals with disabilities. For example, when we talk about “the poor little boy in a wheelchair” a “disabled child” or a student who “suffers from autism” we are approaching the education and personhood of those individuals with pity, instead of seeing students for their strengths, such as “a second grade student who uses a wheelchair to access the classroom and loves science” or “a fourth grader with autism who enjoys writing.” While some would argue that these distinctions are “just words,” we know that language profoundly affects both our attitudes and actions (Boroditsky, 2011; Snow, 2006a; Wilkins, 2012).
Therefore, it is critical that we as professionals use person- first language (such as the examples in Figure 1) when speaking to, about, and for our students with disabilities (Snow, 2002).
People-first language refers to the way we speak, write, and portray people with disabilities that eliminates disparagement or pity (Snow, 2003, 2006b; West, Perner, Laz, Murdick, & Gartin, 2015). For example, professionals using person-first language would say “a student with a learning disability,” and not “an LD student,” and never use demeaning or hurtful terms such as “retarded” or “handicapped” (Figure 1) (Snow, 2006a; Snow, 2006b). The words retarded or retard are unacceptable terms (despite the fact that many textbooks still use the word), and these terms are considered slurs. Just like any other minority slur, the use of the “R word” should not be tolerated.
Professionals in special education and rehabilitation fields have encouraged the use of person-first language for several decades, yet person-first language is not consistent across all professional fields; and many professionals continue to use deficit-based descriptors (Peers, Spencer- Cavliere, & Eales, 2014). This challenge extends to federal and state legislators, the medical profession, and media portrayals of individuals with disabilities. Some
https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2017-V22-I1-7961
Clarke, Columbia Embury, Knight, Christensen
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 75 2017, Volume 22, Number 1
Person-First Language (YES, DO USE) Non-Person First (NO, DON’T USE)
General and special education Regular education (this implies that all learners in other settings are irregular)
Disability OR Diagnosis Special needs – this term was used to “soften” the term disability and invoke pity Handicaps/handicapped
Person with/has Person is (autistic, blind note: we avoid the use of “is” because it implies this is your sole personhood, as opposed to part of who you are), disabled person
Person has suffers/ is afflicted, -bound (as in wheelchair-bound, or any word that evokes pity or shame), victim
Person has Autistic, Diabetic, Asthmatic Any other term that ends in -ic
Peer Typical Peer, Normal Peer, Average Peer
Person with an intellectual disability Retarded (retarded is considered offensive and is a minority slur), mentally disabled, impaired, handicapped
Person with blindness or vision loss The blind, blind guy
Person with a learning/sensory difference or person with a learning disability
The disabled, handicapped, handicaps
Person who is deaf or hard of hearing Person who is DHH Person with a mild, moderate, severe, profound hearing loss
The deaf, the deaf and dumb Suffers from a hearing loss (avoid pity – do not use words like “suffering, afflicted, bound, etc.)
Person with cerebral palsy CP victim, suffers from CP
Person with epilepsy, person with seizures Epileptic
Person who uses a wheelchair Confined or restricted to a wheelchair
Person who has muscular dystrophy Stricken by MD
Figure 1. People-First Language Primer
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 76 2017, Volume 22, Number 1
Person-First Language Primer
g
Person with a physical disability Crippled, lame (lame is considered offensive), deformed, disabled
Preverbal Person who uses synthetic speech/sign/ text to speech software to communicate
Dumb, mute, refuses to talk, stupid Nonverbal
Person with a psychiatric disability or person with a mental health diagnosis, person diagnosed with (specific diagnosis like depression)
Crazy, nuts, “madman/woman”, loco, wacko, use of profanity, other derogatory terms
Person who is successful, productive Has “overcome” his/her disability, is courageous (when it implies the person has courage just because they have a disability)
students with moderate to severe disabilities (MSD classrooms)
handicapped classroom trainable mentally handicapped educable mentally handicapped trainable handicapped functionally mentally disabled (FMD)
Children with disabilities Students with disabilities
Impaired students, Impaired children (note: impairment is often linked with alcohol and drug abuse and should not be linked to students with disabilities)
Inclusion Inclusive setting Inclusive classroom
Mainstreaming, mainstreamed, mainstream classroom
Person, child, student, boy, girl, athlete, leader, team player…
Disabled person who has overcome adversity, disabled boy, disabled girl, special needs child, special needs athlete
Additional Equity Phrases to Consider
Appropriate to Use Not Appropriate to Use
She runs fast. She is quick. She runs X miles per hour.
She runs like a girl.
Can you ask John to lift that box? He’s had the training needed.
Ask John to lift that – it’s too heavy for girls.
He’s hilarious. He’s so funny. (in general, avoid negative talk about peers).
He’s so gay. That’s so gay. She’s queer.
Figure 1. People-First Language Primer (cont).
Clarke, Columbia Embury, Knight, Christensen
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 77 2017, Volume 22, Number 1
have argued that people-first language can clutter our communication and is not always needed (Peers et al., 2014), while others advocate for the use of people-first language in all communications (Lieberman & Arndt, 2004; Lynch & Thuli, 1994; Russell, 2008; Snow, 2003; West et al., 2015).
As professionals and educators, we believe that the goal for all written, graphic, and verbal communications — how we talk, write, and illustrate/draw—is to support the learning of our students. Professional communication aims to be unbiased, nonjudgemental, nonsexist, and nonracist. Additionally, communication should avoid terminology that objectifies human beings as entities of pity (e.g., such as wheelchair-bound, confined to a wheelchair, suffering, impaired, or suffers from a disability).
Positive Language Because much of educational training in relation to
disability identification is based on a medical model, the language of the medical model is often passed on to pre- service teachers. This often results in identifying students by their disabilities, their symptoms, or characteristics. Within education, practitioners should use strength- based language that focuses on skills attained rather than deficits or limiting language that implies that a student cannot do things based on the disability category (KDE, 2015). This extends beyond teachers in the classroom to administrators, collaborators, and all those who work with students in P-12 students. In addition, strength-based language is required for teacher educators and professionals involved in training pre-service teachers. Professionals are encouraged to avoid words and terms that imply a student can’t or won’t do something because of a disability. Education professionals should focus on alternate paths and ways students can work. The use of positive language is part of the conceptual framework of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which focuses on providing access for all learners.
Culture Specific Some specific disability cultures (specifically some
communities of people with blindness, some people who have autism, and others with significant hearing loss or deafness) self identify by their disability. For instance, many with deafness or significant hearing loss may identify as “Deaf ” if they consider themselves part of the Deaf community, otherwise they might refer to themselves as hard of hearing. Some individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome refer to themselves as “Aspies” or “autistic” and stress the importance of neurodiversity and how their differences can be a benefit in their lives (Hooi, 2011). It is important for educational practitioners to respect
those individuals’ values and self-perception. However, professionals and nonmembers of those communities should always use appropriate people-first language.
Talking About Groups Group designations for people with disabilities such
as “the blind” or “the disabled” are discouraged because they do not reflect the personhood, equality, or dignity of people with disabilities. Also, referring to peers without disabilities as “normal” imply that the person with a disability isn’t normal. However, disability is, in fact, a normal part of life and most people will experience disability at some time in their lives (Snow, 2002). When professionals talk about a “person without a disability”, the phrase is clear and descriptive but does not invoke pity or a negative connotation.
History Reclaimed: Mainstreaming vs. Inclusion In the early days of special education, the term
“mainstreaming” was used to define a model in which students with disabilities had to earn their way into general education classrooms by proving they could consistently follow classroom rules and complete the work with minor supports from the general education teacher (Bender, Vail & Scott, 1995; Horne, 1985; Meyen & Lehr, 1980). The passage of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004, P.L. 94-142) offered students with disabilities specialized and individualized instruction to meet their needs, and also introduced the concept of a least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. This principle of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), understood to mean integration of all students in the general education setting, to the extent that their ability levels and needs allow (Kauffman, 1995; McLeskey & Pacchiano, 1994), required for the first time that students with disabilities have the opportunity to be included in the general classroom with same-age peers. Recognizing these histories and understandings, we use the term “inclusion” instead of mainstreaming when discussing the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.
Learning Environments When discussing or writing about where students
learn, professionals should use the terminology “general education” as opposed to “regular education.” Using the term “regular” to describe the education of students in the general classroom implies that students requiring a more “specialized” approach to education are “irregular” which is inaccurate and potentially harmful. Overall, avoid using limiting language and focus on supports we provide to help students access content and environments for learning.
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 78 2017, Volume 22, Number 1
Person-First Language Primer
Intersection of Disability and Sexuality and Gender Ensuring the use of people-first language for students
with disabilities who also identify as LGBTQ places our focus on our students’ personhood and offers the respect in communication that we work to give all students. People who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/ or queer/questioning (LGBTQ) have a much higher risk of marginalization and bullying than their counterparts (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). Research also shows that students with disabilities are at a greater risk for bullying and marginalization (Marshall, 2009). Students with disabilities who also identify as LGBTQ face numerous obstacles to inclusion and acceptance in school communities (Morgan, Mancl, Kaffar, & Ferreira, 2011). These challenges include being identified with inappropriate slurs and terms that demean their personhood. Professionals must recognize that individuals marginalized for their disabilities may face additional stigma and discrimination if they also identify as LGBTQ (Christensen & Columbia Embury, 2016; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Sexuality and gender are not disabilities or conditions that disable individuals; however, LGBTQ, genderfluid, and gender nonconforming individuals are also marginalized populations, and students who identify both as having a disability and LGBTQ should be recognized and addressed using person-first language.
Because Words Matter Some people may say, “You’re just wordsmithing…
I don’t mean anything by it. I’m not hurting anyone,” yet the data indicates that students with disabilities are at increased risk for bullying, depression, and suicide. It is our responsibility as educators, world citizens, and human beings to care for and protect each other. One way to extend this respect is through the use of people- first language. While there is limited research on the use of people-first language in professional communication and its effect on school culture and student efficacy, the data we do have supports the need to continue to use people-first language in our daily communication and to advocate for its use across our communities.
Recommendations As educators and advocates, it is crucial that we
encourage the use of person-first language in all settings. We should encourage revisions for federal and state regulations that use non-person-first language, and encourage institutions of higher education as well as P-12 schools to use person-first language in all communication. In addition, we need to encourage the use of person-first language in the community and media. As we model and
encourage the use of person-first language, we hope we can continue to change the way others think of and talk about persons with disabilities.
References Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’
attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: Imple- menting effective instruction for students with learn- ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87–94.
Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. Scientific American.com. Retrieved from http://www.gwashingtonhs.org/ourpages / auto/2013/10/23/68598699/sci-am-2011.pdf.
Christensen, J., & Columbia Embury, D. (2016, Septem- ber). Intersections of Identity: Exceptionality and LGBTQ. Communique/National Association of School Psychologists, 45(1), 23–23.
Hooi, A. L. K. (2011, February 24). Aspies, you are not alone. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25iht- edlim25.html.
Horne, M. D. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped students: Professional, peer and parent reactions. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Kauffman, J. M. (1995). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 125–155). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). (2015). Guid- ance document for Individualized Education Pro- gram development. Retrieved from http://educa- tion.ky.gov/specialed/excep/forms/Pages/IEP-Guid- ance-and-Documents.aspx
Lieberman, L. J., & Arndt, K. (2004). Language to live and learn by. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 15(2), 33–34.
Lynch, R., & Thuli, K. (1994). Person-first disability language: A pilot analysis of public perceptions. Journal of Rehabilitation, 60(2), 18.
McLeskey, J., & Pacchiano, D. (1994). Mainstreaming students with learning disabilities: Are we making progress? Exceptional Children, 60, 508–517.
Meyen, E. L., & Lehr, D. H. (1980). Least restrictive environments: Instructional implications. Focus on Exceptional Children, 12(1), 1–8.
Clarke, Columbia Embury, Knight, Christensen
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 79 2017, Volume 22, Number 1
Morgan, J. J., Mancl, D. B., Kaffar, B. J., & Ferreira, D. (2011). Creating safe environments for students with disabilities who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Intervention In School And Clinic, 47(1), 3–13.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvan- tages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 377–391.
Russell, C. L. (2008). How are your person-first skills? Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 40–43.
Snow, K. (2002). Case against special needs. Retrieved from https://www.disabilityisnatural.com/special-needs. html
Snow, K. (2003). Is it just semantics? Retrieved from https://www.disabilityisnatural.com/semantics.html
Snow, K. (2006a). Same is different. Retrieved from https:// www.disabilityisnatural.com/same-different.html
Snow, K. (2006b). The hierarchy of insults. Retrieved from https://www.disabilityisnatural.com/same-different. html
West, E. A., Perner, D. E., Laz, L., Murdick, N. L., & Gartin, B. C. (2015). People-first and competence-oriented language. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 11(2), 16–28.
Wilkins, V. (2012). Communicating humanness: Attitudes and language. Social Advocacy and Systems Change, 3(1), 38–43.
Laura Shipp Clarke is an associate professor in the
Department of Special Education at Eastern Kentucky University.
Dusty Columbia Embury is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at Eastern Kentucky University.
Catherine Knight is a graduate student in the Department of Special Education at Eastern Kentucky University.
Jennifer Christensen is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at Eastern Kentucky University.
Please send correspondence to [email protected]
Copyright of Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal is the property of Sagamore Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.