What is ‘normal’ classroom learning and behaviour? Are medical categories such as ‘ADHD’ reflective of real biological problems for which medical intervention is an effective solution? Or are they ‘socially constructed’ in the sense that they are merely labels that oppress children who engage in behaviour that teachers, parents and policy-makers deem undesirable? Is it possible for schools to take up concepts in ways helpful for children with different educational needs? Or can such concepts only lead to misunderstanding, confusion and frustration?

Various disciplinary lenses in this debate include, but are not limited to, neurobiology, social science, and sociology. What should be clear at this point is educational discourse, more generally, is interdisciplinary in nature. Psychology, sociology, economics, philosophy, history and the natural sciences (neuroscience) all play a role in informing one’s perspectives on these questions and one can observe elements of each among the various paper’s we’ve looked at this term.

Clearly, Travel and Visser are concerned, rightly or wrongly, that the use of labels may act as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. One might see some relevant links to Ecclestone’s idea of the ‘diminished self’ to be made, here. Cooper, on the other hand, thinks that such labels are defensible to the extent that people actually take the time to understand the actual science behind such categories (and not simply our assumptions or worries about that science) really mean.

Further reading:

Abidin, R. R., & Robinson, L. L. (2002). Stress, Biases, or Professionalism What Drives Teachers’ Referral Judgments of Students with Challenging Behaviors?. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral disorders, 10(4), 204-212.

Cigman, R. (2007). A question of universality: Inclusive education and the principle of respect. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 775-793.

Schrag, F. (2011). Does neuroscience matter for education?. Educational Theory, 61(2), 221-237.