Dear list members,
I've been following the 'disability language' thread with interest. There's a
related problem I've been struggling with for a while now, and I wonder if list
members can help. I work as a learning support teacher in a comprehensive school for
young people aged 11-16. Some of the students I support identify as 'disabled' -
primarily those who have intellectual impairments and those who identify as autistic.
But most of the students I work with don't claim such identities. They are, however,
marginalised and oppressed by a schooling system and set of practices that prize
academic achievement and measurable 'performance' in exams etc. - and where they are
'other' to the achieving i.e. 'normal' students. The usual practice amongst school
staff is to refer to 'SEN students' when decribing this group, and to avoid the topic
altogether when talking to the students themselves - as if their 'failure' to get
good exam results is too shameful to mention. The usual practice amongst the students
I work with is to refer to themselves as 'stupid' or 'thick' - and as far as I can
see this is NOT done to reclaim these terms, but in self-deprecation (though I'm open
to being told I'm wrong on this).
I'm very well aware of the problem of a relatively powerful group 'naming' a
relatively powerless one. I'm aware that it's an arrogant thing to do, and
it's not my intention. But I'm in a very tricky situation. When I speak to the
students about how they want to represent themselves, they (understandably) fall back
on the defecit models in circulation at the school. I feel I want to offer them some
alternatives. I also need some terminology I can use with my colleagues. I don't like
using the euphemistic 'SEN', and I would feel very uncomfortable with using the
students' own descriptions of themselves - as 'thickies' and 'failures'. Even if they
are reclaiming these epithets (which I doubt), I still think it would be offensive
for me in my position to use them.
The nearest I've managed to get to something that holds on to the marginalisation of
this group without necessarily implying inherent defecit is 'academically excluded'.
Is this too much of a polite euphemism? In the British context, too 'New Labour'? The
students I've suggested it to tend to look a bit blank, which suggests that I've not
got it right yet. What do people think? Any comments, and alternative suggestions
would be very welcome.
Thanks,
Shereen
----------------------
Shereen BENJAMIN
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|