Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

The practice of labeling—affixing a category or descriptor—upon a student to signal a shorthand message to others about a student’s academic ability, behavior or character within schools is not a new phenomenon (Harris 1967; Bianco and Leech 2010). In fact, researchers have drawn attention to the practice of mis/labeling and the often unintended stigmatization that result for many years when students of color, particularly Black males are labeled as at risk or high risk (Abidin et al. 1972; Fairbanks 1992; McNulty and Roseboro 2009). In her groundbreaking ethnographic study of school discipline practices, sociologist Ann Ferguson found that Black males at a racially-integrated school were more likely than other groups to be labeled as ‘‘bad boys’’ (Ferguson 2000). Ferguson revealed a disturbing picture of how White educators’ beliefs in the ‘‘natural difference’’ of Black children and ‘‘unruly behavior’’ of Black males specifically shaped discipline decisions. Evidenced by teachers’ written infractions and the concomitant detention referrals concerning Black male students, she noted the Black male students did not engage in the school’s ‘‘politics of politeness.’’ That is, Black male students were often criticized for not exhibiting appropriate middle-class manners regarding body language and oral expressiveness which disproportionately singled them out as being ‘‘at risk’’ for failure and school punishment. Ferguson also noted that rather than prompting a change in behavior, the label tended to reinforce the very oppositional behaviors that White teachers who used and affixed it hoped to remediate. In most cases, the practice of labeling has been associated with an evaluative process that results in the assignment of a categorical diagnostic term (e.g., slow, incorrigible, disruptive, etc.). For this reason, labeling has frequently been associated with stigmatizing, isolating and marginalizing individuals with assumed or real learning, behavioral or physical differences (Thomson 2012). Despite a vast body of research over many years demonstrating the harmful effects of labeling on student self-image, academic performance and behavior, evidence suggests that negative and often harmful labels persist in usage in schools throughout the United States (Taylor et al. 2010; Schulz and Rubel 2011; Gold and Richards 2012). When a student is placed in a negative category as a result of such labeling, they are often stigmatized and denied ‘‘normal’’ membership and status in the larger school community (Pfeiffer 1998). Recent research on Black and Latino males in particular suggests that they are more likely to be unfairly victimized by the common labeling processes that occur within school (Noguera 2003), even when they attend predominantly Black or Latino schools. The practice of labeling students is often accompanied by the practice of separating students based on the affixed label. A study of schools in New York City found that students who were labeled as level 1 (the lowest possible score) based on their performance on standardized tests were more likely to be concentrated in schools with other designated ‘‘high need’’ students, (e.g., students with learning disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and low-income children generally) (Parthenon 2009). Such schools were substantially more likely to be deemed ‘‘failing’’ by the New York City Department of Education, and as a result, more likely to be subject to closure. Schools that separate children on the basis of what are regarded as academic or behavioral deficiencies frequently ignore the race and gender implications of these practices. In a study of schools that had been cited by the New York State Education Department for placing a disproportionate number of children of color in special education and subjecting them to severe discipline, it was found that the educators who made these decisions typically defended them by asserting they were race neutral or ‘‘color blind’’ (Ahram et al. 2011). Despite their claims, the citation from the state occurred because empirical evidence demonstrated the overwhelming impact of these practices were on low-income, Black and Latinos males. Several researchers have found that even when educators claim to be unaware of the implications of labeling practices that have disparate impact on certain groups, students frequently are not. Labeling practices often send children direct and indirect messages about the academic status or ability of particular groups of students. In some settings they may also reinforce negative stereotypes and result in the labeled students being stigmatized (Dyson 1994, p. 34 in Noguera 2003).