Referring to pupils as ‘low-ability’ is damaging but all too common. Unless this changes, schools will never be truly inclusive, warns Margaret Mulholland
I was on a learning walk in a large secondary school when we entered a class of 15 Year 9s. I was told it was a “low-ability class, mostly children with SEND [special educational needs and disability]”, and that the school had invested a lot in smaller class sizes, taught by more experienced staff.
This was a problem. While the school clearly recognised the need for experience and expertise, it continued to categorise children.
I’ve written before about the effects of labelling by diagnosis.
Knowing who has special needs in your class is important, and having a medical diagnosis can be helpful for children and families. However, in school it can cast a shadow over teaching decisions.
Identifying autism, dyslexia or pathological demand avoidance (PDA) is a helpful starting point, but a diagnosis does not tell teachers the full story or how to plan for the child in front of them.
And there’s another type of label that comes in many subtle guises: describing children in terms of “ability”.
The dangers of labelling pupils by ‘ability’
According to a 2001 study by researchers David Gillborn and Deborah Youdell: “‘Ability’ acts as an unrecognised version of ‘intelligence’ and ‘IQ’. If we were to substitute ‘IQ’ for ‘ability’, many alarm bells would ring because ‘ability’ acts as an untainted yet powerful reconstitution of all the beliefs previously wrapped up in terms such as ‘intelligence’.”
This statement is highly relevant today. Referencing children as “low-ability” or “high-ability” remains common, and it is a barrier to understanding the full complexity of students’ individual profiles.
Fixed-ability thinking is an inherent bias, and it has significant influence over attitudes and expectations. It creates a knowledge shield that hides what the child or young person is capable of, and leads to inaccurate assumptions about what a child can or can’t do. It reduces teachers’ own sense of agency to change the educational outcomes of pupils with a “low-ability” label instead of building faith in their professional skill and judgement to identify and nurture potential.
This has a chilling effect on children, who recognise that they are perceived differently and consequently live up to (or rather down to) poor expectations. Too often, poor outcomes then become inevitable for “low prior attainers”.
In practice, fixed-ability thinking raises many questions, as pointed out by researchers like Rachel Marks and Gordon Stobart. For example, how does our language change when we work with different children? Are we more directive with particular children? With whom do we do more joking around?
Increasingly, schools are thinking in more detail about questions like these. Many are keen to challenge ability stereotypes and recognise the value of teachers using their expertise to determine which inclusive teaching strategies are most effective for their classes.
The evidence we need to inform this process comes from regular teacher assessment, both formal and informal: structured testing, questioning, planned activities or in-the-moment noticing. This all helps teachers to assess rather than assume.
Ability labelling is still alive and kicking in many settings. It has a hold on everyday discourse, particularly in relation to data and progress.
If we don’t start to challenge this fixed-ability thinking, all the work that schools are doing to champion inclusive culture and remove barriers to progress will be undone.
Margaret Mulholland is the special educational needs and inclusion specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders
You need a Tes subscription to read this article
Subscribe now to read this article and get other subscriber-only content:
