Dr Emma Powell – September 2024
Senior Lecturer in Primary Physical Education
Faculty of Education, Birmingham Newman University
After the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it is timely to reflect upon how we support, challenge and celebrate our children with additional needs in physical education (PE), school sport and physical activity. Could someone in your class be a future Olympic or Paralympic athlete, and if so, will you have contributed positively or negatively to this journey? A huge part of this support is the language we use. A few words can make someone feel like anything is possible, or we can create barriers, stereotypes and systemic discrimination. It is also important to remember that the use of inclusive language should focus on supporting all children with disabilities to have a positive and life-long relationship with physical activity beyond the school setting, which can range from dancing with friends and leisurely swims, to taking part in local club sport or striving to compete on a global level. In this blog, I aim to spark discussion and reflection on the use of disability language in PE and school sport and how it should be a personal preference for children and their families, with that preference often changing over time.
The power of words
The words we use to define children with disabilities can shape how they understand and feel about themselves and others within the school setting and beyond. The words we use also portray our own values of inclusion, and consequently the way we approach and deliver adaptive practice in PE lessons and school sport. Disability language varies across the world and is often influenced by cultural, social, political and historical contexts (Wilson and Martin, 2018). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (2006) defines disability as being an evolving concept which describes the interaction between a person with impairment and attitudinal and environmental barriers. The word ‘disability’ is broadly accepted and used, but how this term is positioned within language can differ. For instance, what has come to my attention over the last few years is the variation in language that teachers use to describe children with disabilities. This may be because there is often limited consensus amongst people with disabilities themselves regarding person first or identity first language (Dunn and Andrews, 2015), which may be attributed to the variety of disabilities represented within the disability culture. Some disabilities are apparent, some are invisible, some individuals are born into disability culture, and others can acquire a disability at different stages in life. Whilst disability language is important, what is more important is the underlying values behind this language. So as practitioners of PE and school sport, this can lead us to a dilemma of not knowing the ‘correct’ terminology to use and often avoiding using any terminology as a result (Richardson, Foster and Martin, 2023). What is important to understand is that the ‘correct’ terminology will be an individual preference of the child and their family. Which is why we must ask their inclination and not assume that we as practitioners know best. However, having knowledge of disability discourse will help to provide inclusive practice in PE and school sport.
Person-first versus identity-first language
Person-first language puts the individual first (noun or collective noun) before referring to the disability (Gurnsbacker, 2017) e.g. children with Autism, a child with Diabetes, a child with Cerebral Palsy, people with blindness etc. Whereas identity-first language puts the disability first (serving as an adjective) and precedes the person (Gurnsbacher, 2017) e.g., disabled person, autistic child etc. The person-first versus identity-first has been a long-standing debate (Best et al., 2022). Historically, these terms are grounded in different models of disability and having knowledge of these models can help practitioners to understand language surrounding various disabilities that children may have in your PE and school sport sessions (Richardson, Foster and Martin, 2023).
Illustration by Lia Petronio/Northeastern University
Person-first language has its roots within medical models of disability in which the medical professionals identify what is ‘wrong’ with a person and practitioners who work within the medical model would use terms such as ‘children with disabilities’ (Wilson and Martin, 2018). Medical models have been criticised as viewing the disability within the person rather than within society and culturally (Richardson, Foster and Martin, 2023). However, others argue that person-first language in medical conditions such as Diabetes (i.e., child with Diabetes), can promote respect human dignity and hope (Dickenson et al., 2023). Social model discourse views disability as environmental with links to social oppressions, therefore supporters of the social model use identity-first language (e.g., autistic children) to highlight the disability as an oppressed social experience (Richardson, Foster and Martin, 2023). However, many theorists in the USA argue that the social model does not put the person first and many publications in the states will use phrasing such as ‘people with disabilities’ (Wilson and Martin, 2018).
Is ‘special needs’ an ineffective term?
The phrase ‘special needs’ is truly embedded within the UK school system, for instance children with disabilities are described as having ‘special educational needs and disabilities’ (SEND), there are SEND coordinators, and teachers can achieve SEND qualifications, and SEND modules on teacher training courses (Wilson and Martin, 2018). Teachers in England are assessed against the Teachers’ Standards which states that they must adapt their practice for children with SEND (DfE, 2021). The SEND code of practice, updated in 2020, defines SEN as a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special education provision to be made. However, for some, the term ‘special needs’ can create discomfort and frustration, reinforcing that disability can be an undesirable and a negative state in society. Gernsbacher et al. (2016), conducted research into whether people with disabilities find the term ‘special needs’ offensive. They concluded that people are viewed more negatively when described as having a ‘special need’ than when described as having a disability, concluding that the term ‘special needs’ is an ineffective euphemism of disability. The term ‘SEND’ is deeply rooted in the UK education system and is often used without consideration of its meaning and impact on children with disabilities and their families. However, the use of the term ‘special needs’ for me, is not inclusive and remains a largely accepted yet contested term. In considering inclusive practice in PE and school sport, could we propose a new term? Could it be ‘disability inclusion’?
Considerations for practice in PE and school sport
- Take time to understand disability discourse and the impact of vocabulary that is embedded in our education system.
- Discuss preferred disability discourse with children and their families and gain an understanding of why they may choose person-first or identity-first language. This will help you to approach inclusive practice in an appropriate way for the child and family. However, please note, that some children may be unaware of their disability depending on age, so always go through the appropriate channels to discuss this e.g. Senior Leaders, parents etc.
- Consider how social models of disability take account of daily environmental and social oppression, how can you help to address this in your PE and school sport sessions? Are children with disabilities (or disabled children) being treated differently? Could you adapt your practice so that they are made to feel like they belong rather than stand out from the rest of the class? Simple things like coming to school in PE kit for every child can help to remove environmental/social oppression for some children with disabilities.
- Instead of using the term ‘special educational needs’ could we replace it with a more representative term such as disability inclusion in PE and school sport?
References
Best, K.L., Mortenson, W.B., Lauzière-Fitzgerald, Z. and Smith, E.M. (2022) Language matters! The long-standing debate between identity-first language and person first language. Assistive technology, 34(2), pp.127-128.
Dickinson, J.K., Bialonczyk, D., Reece, J., Kyle, T.K., Close, K.L., Nadglowski, J., Johnson, K., Garza, M., Pash, E. and Chiquette, E. (2023) Person‐first language in diabetes and obesity scientific publications. Diabetic Medicine, 40(9), p.e15067.
Dunn, D.S. and Andrews, E.E. (2015) Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. American Psychologist, 70(3), p.255.
Gernsbacher, M.A. (2017) Editorial perspective: The use of person‐first language in scholarly writing may accentuate stigma. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(7), pp.859-861.
Gernsbacher, M.A., Raimond, A.R., Balinghasay, M.T. and Boston, J.S. (2016) “Special needs” is an ineffective euphemism. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 1, pp.1-13.
Richardson, E.F., Foster, R. and Martin, L. (2023) Inclusive Language in Adapted Physical Education: Linking Disability Discourse from Theory to Practice.
United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-ofpersons-with-disabilities.html [Accessed 20th August, 2024].
Wilson, L. and Martin, N. (2018) Models of disability affect language: Implications for disability, equality and inclusivity practice. The Journal of Inclusive Practice in Further and Higher Education, p.4.
Responses