A number of interactions I have had lately have left me wondering if I am being as inclusive as I want to be with the language that I use.
Language influences our collective beliefs and attitudes. Language shapes cultures and changes over time. Historically, language has often been used to oppress and exclude children within schooling.
Thankfully, we have moved a long way from the days when words such as “uneducable” were used to describe students. However, I wonder how we will view our current language choices in decades to come.
Are we really being as inclusive as we could be? Will our chosen vocabulary stand up well to the scrutiny of future generations?
Let’s look at a common example. One word that can be used to describe students is “defiant”. This is sometimes used to describe a situation when the student does not comply with a request from a teacher.
Defiance is an interesting concept. It speaks of intentionality and attitude. It shares a value judgement based on our interpretation about what lies beneath the observable behaviour.
You cannot observe defiance
What you can observe is compliance or non-compliance. The student may be being defiant, but equally, there may be something else going on.
As we so often acknowledge – behaviour is communication. If we assume poor behaviour is because of underlying poor attitudes, we risk forgetting to actively listen and observe, we risk failing to consider what else may be being communicated (e.g. trauma, unmet need, lack of belonging, not feeling safe, low self-esteem, pain, fear, lack of understanding, confusion, feeling out of control)…
For example, the rigidity of thought or behaviour that is sometimes characteristic within autism spectrum conditions could perhaps be interpreted as defiance.
However, this is not intentional, wilful, or deliberate. In this instance, a student may be unable to adapt or adjust their behaviour when instructions are given without further time, support, and scaffolding.
Neurodivergent people in particular can be sensitive to rejection, so language that seems to harshly judge could lead to increased frustration, distress, emotional dysregulation, and meltdowns or shutdowns (which in themselves could be misinterpreted as defiance).
The language being used could be fuelling the behaviour we are trying to address – or at the very least it dismisses the real need that the behaviour is actually communicating.
If we shift from the language of defiance to the language of compliance, there would be a subtle shift away from a focus on problematic people, towards a focus on problematic behaviour.
It would hopefully help to develop shared understanding and bring people together, in positive partnerships, to solve problems and support young people. We can help young people to adjust their behaviour without seeming to make judgements about them, their intentions, and by possible implication their value or worth.
Language choices can be a real challenge, especially for those new to the classroom. As professionals we develop our own bank of phrases that we draw from when handling difficult situations. We should reflect regularly on these phrases and adapt our repertoire to continue to improve our practice.
Mentors and leaders should aim to support new teachers to develop their own use of language and collate their own personal phrase banks to support respectful and supportive communication.
Suggestions for practice
- As a team commit to reflecting upon and challenging language where it focuses on the student rather than the behaviour.
- Collectively, agree language that will be used in the school to describe behaviour as objectively as possible. Try to focus upon what was observable.
- Review the systems used for logging and reporting behaviour incidents in your school. Are there set phrases which staff select from? Do these phrases imply judgements or convey unhelpful messages? Can they be improved?
- Reflect upon what the student’s behaviour might be communicating and what the barriers might be. How might we adapt practice? For example, if a student is not behaving as we would want whenever there is a sudden change to routine or way of working, they might need more prior warning. Providing more signposting about what is to come, either at the beginning of the lesson or before the lesson, is likely to help with this. Keeping a record of the behaviour observed and what precedes it can help you to identify patterns.
For example, words we might want to avoid include “won’t” and the verb “to be” (is, are, was, were).
When we say someone “won’t” do something, we suggest that this is intentional when it may actually be that they “cannot” yet do what we have asked of them and need support.
When we use the verb “to be” to describe a student, it communicates our judgement about that person: “They are uncooperative.”
Instead, let’s focus on the behaviour not the person. Rather than “they won’t”, try “they didn’t” or “they haven’t”. And instead of “they are”, again try to describe what happened with “did” or “didn’t”.
- Emma Goto is senior lecturer with the Faculty of Education at the University of Winchester. A former advanced skills teacher, Emma is also a governor in a local infant school and a member of the trust for a local secondary school.
Further reading
Stanbridge & Mercer: Mind your language: Why the language used to describe children’s SEMH needs matters, International Journal of Inclusive Education (26,3), 2019: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1649477