# Rethinking Students

## Presuming Competence

I have been a paraprofessional for 23 years. The biggest surprise to me is that these students are really smart. When I began working ...we would have them practice writing their name and address every day, they would work on matching colors to these plastic bears—and the kids hated doing the same things over and over. Then we got a new teacher, and things changed! We were now expected to take these kids into classrooms like algebra and physics. I thought [the teacher] was crazy (laughing) . . . But, I will never forget the day I was supporting Daniel. I gave him the calculator to figure out the problem . . . and it was a hard problem too. He pushed the calculator away, refusing to use it, and he wrote the answer down. I checked it. He was right! It made me want to cry. Who knows what we have done to kids like Daniel in the past, and who knows just what kids like Daniel can do!? —Chantel (paraprofessional)

When I approach a child, [s]he inspires in me two sentiments: tenderness for what [s]he is, and respect for what [s]he may become. —Louis Pasteur (Institut Pasteur, n.d.)

## STUDENT DESCRIPTIONS

These two radically different descriptions of Shawntell come from two different groups of people. The first description comes from her parents. The second comes from her teachers and other school support personnel. Although not all teachers would describe Shawntell in these ways, this is how her team described her. It is surprising to compare these statements side-by-side. The stark contrast raises the question of how the same person can be described in such disparate ways.

The principal reason for these radically different descriptions is that each group of people looks for different things and approaches Shawntell from a different perspective. Shawntell’s parents know her deeply. They have spent a great deal of time with her, know her intimately, and understand her as a person who has wide interests and capabilities. Their description of her cites her interests, gifts, and talents. Conversely, the description generated by Shawntell’s teachers reflects a more distant understanding of her; it is a cold, clinical account that focuses exclusively on her impairments.

As a paraprofessional working with students with disabilities, you will hear impairment-driven descriptions of students, and, thus, you will need to work to understand these students through their strengths, gifts, and talents. You may read a student’s individualized education program, and it might abound with phrases such as mental age of 2, phobic, or aggressive. Reading those descriptors, you will need to realize that you are getting only one perspective on the student. Get to know the student yourself, and work to learn about what he or she can do. Hopefully, your descriptions of a student would look much closer to the parents’ perspective on Shawntell than that of the teachers.

## BEGIN WITH STRENGTHS

I was talking with Beth, a paraprofessional, and I asked her to describe Iris, a student whom she was supporting. She described Iris as autistic, sensitive, loud, sometimes sweet, and nonverbal. These descriptions speak to Beth’s own beliefs about the student. On a separate piece of paper, write down the first 10 descriptors that come to mind when you think of an individual student. Now, look over the list. Were your descriptors positive, negative, or a combination?

Your beliefs about a student will impact how you support and work with that child. What would happen if all education professionals changed how they viewed and spoke about students? What if every student were viewed as a capable learner? One of the best ways to think about the students whom you support is to look at the child through the lens of his or her strengths. Ask yourself the following questions: “What can this student do?” “What are this person’s strengths?” “How would a parent who deeply loves this student speak about him or her?”

During a workshop with a group of teachers and paraprofessionals, Kathy, a paraprofessional, did just that. First, she wrote a list of descriptors. Then, after spending some time rethinking the student, she came up with a completely different list. She had originally described the student, Brian, as “lazy, smart, sneaky, a liar, cute, cunning, and mean (at times).” After talking about viewing students differently, she got a new piece of paper. She wrote, “relaxed, intelligent, good in math, cute, needs some support with peer relationships, a great sense of humor, and a beautiful smile.” I asked Kathy whether this still accurately described Brian. She said that the second list was a much more accurate description of him.

## MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Consider the work of educational researcher Thomas Armstrong (2000a, 2000b) on using Multiple Intelligence theory in the classroom. Armstrong recommended that education professionals purposefully rethink the ways they describe students. By changing their language, people will begin to change their impressions. Armstrong emphasized that all behavior is part of the human experience and that behavior is based on a multitude of influences (environment, sense of safety, personal wellbeing). Armstrong has proposed that instead of considering a child learning disabled, people see the child as learning differently.

### Table 5.1. Turning lead into gold

| A child who is judged to be | Can also be considered |
| --- | --- |
| Learning disabled | Learning differently |
| Hyperactive | Kinesthetic |
| Impulsive | Spontaneous |
| ADD/ADHD | A bodily-kinesthetic learner |
| Dyslexic | A spatial learner |
| Aggressive | Assertive |
| Plodding | Thorough |
| Lazy | Relaxed |
| Immature | Late blooming |
| Phobic | Cautious |
| Scattered | Divergent |
| Daydreaming | Imaginative |
| Irritable | Sensitive |
| Perseverative | Persistent |

Key: ADD, attention deficit disorder; ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

## PRESUME COMPETENCE

In the school setting, assumptions about students can affect their education. Take Sue Rubin, for instance. Sue, a student with autism, had no formal way of communicating until she was 13 years old. Before that time, she had been treated and educated as if she had a mental age of 2 years old. Mental age is often based on a person’s score on an IQ test. This is not a useful way to think about intelligence. When Sue acquired a form of communication called facilitated communication, those long-held assumptions were no longer valid.

Because education professionals have no real way of determining what a student understands, they should presume that every student is competent or capable. Anne Donnellan uses the term least dangerous assumption to describe this idea: “Least dangerous assumption states that in the absence of absolute evidence, it is essential to make the assumption that, if proven to be false, would be least dangerous to the individual” (Donnellan, 1984, p. 24). In other words, it is better to presume that students are competent and that they can learn than to expect that they cannot learn.

## AGE-APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE

Paraprofessionals should treat and work with students in age-appropriate ways. I once witnessed a paraprofessional holding hands with a sixth-grade student in the hall. I doubt that the paraprofessional would have thought it appropriate to hold the hand of a sixth-grade student who did not have a disability. For that very reason, it is inappropriate to hold any student’s hand. This same logic holds true for having students sit on your lap, play with age-inappropriate toys, sing age-inappropriate songs, and so forth.

## PERSON-FIRST LANGUAGE

If thoughts corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought. —George Orwell (1981)

When describing, speaking, or writing respectfully about people who have disabilities, many people use a common language. It is called person-first language. The concept of person-first language is simple. Think first about how you might introduce someone who does not have a disability. You might use the person’s name, say how you know him or her, or describe what he or she does.

### Table 5.3. Examples of person-first language

| Say | Instead of | Because |
| --- | --- | --- |
| People with disabilities | The disabled or handicapped | Place emphasis on the person. |
| People without disabilities | Normal/healthy/typical | These words assume the opposite for students with disabilities. |
| Ella, the fourth-grade student | Ella, the student with Down syndrome | Omit the label whenever possible; it is most often not relevant. |
| Communicates with her eyes/device, and so forth | Is nonverbal | Focus on strengths. |
| Uses a wheelchair | Is confined to a wheelchair | Use possessive language to refer to assistive technologies. |
| Accessible parking spot | Handicapped parking spot | Accurate representation |
| Beth has autism. | Beth is autistic. | Emphasize that disability is one attribute—not a defining characteristic. |

## COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT STUDENTS

**Q. What if a student prefers an age-inappropriate toy or game?**  
A. Often, people with disabilities have been treated as if they were younger than they are. As a result, they have been exposed to cartoons, dolls, or games to which their same-age peers have not been exposed; their peers are not likely to think these activities are cool. One option, then, is to expose the student to more age-appropriate music and activities.

**Q. Are there any exceptions to person-first language?**  
A. Yes, people who are deaf often prefer the term deaf instead of person with deafness. A group called Deaf First suggests that deafness is a major component of identity, and this group prefers disability-first language.

### CONCLUSION

Remember, these labels are not accurate descriptors of people. Children who have disabilities are unique individuals with unlimited potential, just like everyone else.