How We Label Students with Disabilities: A Framework of Language Use in an Urban School District in the United States

Abstract

Although scientists have often overlooked the role of language used to refer to people with disabilities in their identities, language may reflect societal attitudes that are critical in shaping the experiences of people with disabilities, particularly during formative periods. International controversy surrounds disability-first versus people-first language, but little research to date has explored specific linguistic references to people with disabilities. This study draws on a content analysis of 22 qualitative interviews with students, parents, teachers, and administrators to explore language used to refer to students with disabilities. Results offer the first framework of language in a U.S. urban school district, including people-first, disability-implicit, and disability-first language. Results demonstrate noteworthy variation in form and content, and offer a values-based and contextual understanding of language. This nuanced way of understanding experiences of students with disabilities has implications for potentially improving language used to refer to people with disabilities, as well as creating a more positive disability identity.

Content acquisition podcasts’ impact on preservice teachers’ understanding of language and disability

“…Language allows for one to build and understand the world around them, as well as reflects how one views others (Back, Keys, McMahon, & O’Neil, 2016; Blaska, 1993). Language is particularly relevant in relation to historically marginalized groups, such as people with disabilities (Back et al , 2016; Blaska, 1993; Dunn, & Andrews, 2015). Language usage related to disability often has negative connotations and is fueled by stereotypes.…”

(Sub)lexical changes in iconic signs to realign with community sensibilities and experiences

“…Language regarding identities, particularly minority identities, is often the subject of controversy in spoken languages, sometimes leading to lexical changes. For example, a number of scholars have studied functional diversity with respect to identity issues and have looked at ways of referring to those identities/groups, sometimes with at least passing attention to euphemism (Muredda 2012; Back, Keys, McMahon, & O'Neill 2016), where many of the examples that come up involve replacing explicitness with vagueness (such as talking about children with ‘special needs’; see Grondelaers & Geeraerts 1998).…”

Schools as Vehicles to Assess Experiences, Improve Outcomes, and Effect Social Change

“…We collected surveys from 200 students, 163 teachers, and 16 principals (e.g., Crouch, Keys, & McMahon, ; Keys, McMahon, & Viola, ; McMahon, Parnes, Keys, & Viola, ; Sorani‐Villanueva, McMahon, Crouch, & Keys, ; Williams, McMahon, & Keys, ). We conducted interviews with 12 teachers, 17 school leaders, 3 directors of special education, and with 22 students, parents, teachers, and administrators for a case study (Back, Keys, McMahon, & O'Neill, ). We also participated in parent feedback meetings to gather their input and share our findings (Graham, Keys, McMahon, & Brubacher, ).…”