Although many people may find research in education irrelevant and attempt to undermine it, the research carries tremendous importance for the success of children in school. Education is key to people’s success and so consequently, teachers hold the success of the future in their hands. A teacher’s job entails explaining their interpretations of information to their students, who then come to understand it based on the lesson and reactions of other students learning with them (Ball 2007). Since teachers carry this much power with information, it is important that they are well educated on not only the subject at hand, but also how to explain it the most effectively. While many argue that how the information is relayed has little importance to new learners, Ball, researcher, and professor states that “how teachers use curriculum materials and what they do with students matters for what students learn” (Ball 2007). If it matters how students receive information, it should make a difference in the way a school board prepares their teachers. Unfortunately, school boards frequently put systems in place that are outdated or proven unhelpful. The of lack of research in the education field usually can’t prove the harm enough for people to believe it is not productive and the lack of resources limits new systems being installed. However, the issue discussed in this paper is extremely well researched and proven to be more harmful than helpful to school child and yet it is still commonly used in many schools across the country. Labeling children based on a teacher or researcher’s opinion is looked at as a quick solution to an extremely complex problem; but, the complexity doesn’t allow that quick fix to be beneficial in the slightest. Labeling children is not, and never has been, a good way to approach different kinds of learners. In the primary school system, labeling young children based on their test results, in comparison to their peers, or to previous students will eventually cause more psychological harm than good.

One of the most shocking discoveries that the education field has uncovered is that Visual Auditory Kinesthetic (VAK) learning is actually more harmful than helpful with the more recent knowledge of how the brain works. This technique divides students into three types of learners and then proceeds to use methods specific to that style to teach them. The popularity of this theory was sparked when people attempted to explain why everyone learns differently. This solution seemed like an easy way to teach to the student’s respective capability levels. They focus on the separate parts of the brain, rather than using the connectedness to their advantage. What’s truly upsetting is that even with biological proof that it could possibly be more insidious to focus on one sensory modality than multiple because it contradicts the brain’s natural interconnectivity, it is still widely used in schools and classrooms (Geake, 2008). Some pride themselves on teaching this way while ignoring the facts of its harmful effect on students which can be detrimental to the student’s future learning experiences. This myth is still prevalent today because teaching a diverse classroom how to do something using one method is not going to be effective; however, it is not because there are VAK learners, but because every child needs more than one way to learn about something so that their brain makes connections. The more connections made in the brain about a particular subject, the more likely it is to be remembered by the student when asked about it later on (Geake, 2008). Another issue with this myth is that once a child is told they can only learn in one way, they stop paying attention when taught in a way not specifically for their grouping. They are being trained to believe that only one method of teaching works for them and when they encounter a professor later in life that doesn’t provide alternate methods they struggle. Not only that, but they don’t think it is their own fault for not paying attention; they blame it on the professor for not teaching them “correctly.” This blocking out of other methods also hinders learning in specific subjects based on what the learning style is. For example, it would be extremely hard to learn how to count just by using sounds. A student would need to see something on a page, possible move figures around, and count aloud. All three of these methods combined is more effective than singling out a different one for each student. Students shouldn’t be divided into groups. If it is going to be called individualized learning then it should be based on each student and not which category they fit into best. A student will never be a perfect fit in their placement because each child is different and therefore, they should not carry a specific title. Student should be taught together in many different ways because even if a child knows the material the first time, it doesn’t hurt them to make more connections that will better their understanding and make the concept more concrete. Furthermore, while it may take more ways of explaining it to another child, it does mean that the time the understand it will be through the same method of teaching as another subject.

It is true that every child learns and develops differently; however, by telling a child how they learn a teacher could potentially be setting them up for struggle later on in school (CITE). By being told their entire life that they can only learn a certain way or they belong in a certain crowd, students will believe it. Unfortunately, this decision made by someone who they’ve only just met determines their future success (or not) as a student. Just for simplicity’s sake, imagine that a child’s entire life they grew up believing that he did not like bacon. He has never tried it; however, his mother tells him that he doesn’t like it and therefore, because this woman is his caretaker and superior, he trusts her. Now, every chance he gets to try bacon he turns it down even without solid proof of his disapproval because he is blindly trusting someone’s “expert” approval. One day, he is challenged by his who peer questions him “have you ever tried it?” For so long he believed it was true that he never questioned its credibility. This relates to learning styles in that someone else is deciding what a student prefers in the classroom and what learning trends he or she will follow. By labeling a child in the classroom, teachers limit their children’s ability to grow and learn (CITE). The children trust the teacher’s label because she is responsible for making sure they are taught most effectively; however, in reality, children miss out on great learning experiences (or theoretical bacon) because they shut out all the opportunities presented to them if they don’t fit into their assigned learning category. Learning should be versatile and accommodate everything possible for success; however, labels set limits and boundaries for where students get their information and how it can be received. 

When creating lesson plans, one thing many teachers do not consider is that learning something new physically changes the brain regardless of a student’s label. New neural connections sent through the synapses alter the brain’s pathways as more and more practice strengthens the connection leading the Long Term Potentiation (LTP)(Morris). When a child is taught how to do something they are most often given practice as homework to do after class; however, if this information is taught unclearly or the child misunderstands the particularly difficult material, it is a lot more difficult to reteach information (Morris). Because of LTP, the connections are stronger allowing the knowledge stick with the student longer making it extremely hard to undo (Morris). To a student who has learned and then practiced new information incorrectly, it becomes much harder to correct the information in their brain because not only do they have to make new connections, but the old connections require undoing aswell (Morris). It is important to realize this inevitability when labeling children because once students are told they learn a certain way or that they belong to a certain category, they can’t easily unlearn that about themselves. Children’s brains are still delicate and therefore should be treated with caution, especially when regarding something as important as their education. If there is a more efficient way to teach information without labels or a way to label children while avoiding confusion and therefore eliminating re-teaching, then its discovery could be crucial to many children’s academic futures. 

Evidence suggests that teaching methods and learning experiences hold great importance in a child’s education as their relationship with those around them holds a great amount of influence; therefore, negative emotional experiences will affect them for long periods of time (Hinton, 2004). Not only does the brain’s physical shape change with new knowledge, but it correlates all new information and learning experiences to emotions as learning and emotion are interconnected (Posner, 2004). Understanding how the brain works holds key importance; however, so does understanding each child’s emotions and how or why they have those feelings. One may consider the two as separate realms of the mind; however, “Plato declared that all learning has an emotional base” and learning and emotion are interdependent on one another (Hinton, 2008). Hinton discussed in his article that students will not process new information if their brain is occupied with a powerful emotion. For example, fear can override the material being taught because if a student is asked to perform an example on the board but they are more concerned about their classmate’s opinion’s, then they are no longer focused on the educational material in front of them, but the fact that they are scared to fail in front of the class (Hinton, 2008). The knowledge of how emotion plays a role in education also applies to labeling. If a child knows that they are considered “slow” or “at-risk”, then this knowledge could prohibit them from caring about their future success (Anaslone). Teachers play key roles in encouraging and supporting a child’s success; however, if a child believes that not even the teachers thinks they can be successful then they wonder why they should care (Pierson). Human connection within the classroom is vital to a child’s classroom and experience and knowing that the teacher thinks kids at the table over are considered smarter than them or are predicted to be more successful is very discouraging to a kid who is trying their best just to catch up (Pierson). It becomes hard for a child to put in their best effort because if a child is being told they cannot do it because of a something out of their control – their socioeconomic background for example, then they ponder the point of trying (Anaslone). Instead of hurting children’s feelings by placing harsh labels on them, teachers should put more thought into the emotions of every student. Different types of information are processed by each child differently and some children will struggle in certain subjects (Morris). A student is not born with different capabilities; learning is based on prior knowledge and one child had a more beneficial experience than the other (Morris). It is important to the child’s education to know everything what affects them and how it could be affecting their ability to learn. 

Each label typically comes with its own societal stereotype. Often, the “gifted” student is a skinny, un-athletic kid who has problems with bullies and making friends. He sticks to what he knows – books and avoids the social patterns of his school. However, when the star athlete is told he is smart, an identity crisis ensues. This child wonders what social group he belongs to because he has his “smart” friends and he has his teammates. Who does he sit with? Who does he like more? Which group should he belong to? These questions seem like a small problem to have but for kids, their friends are extremely important to their success. These questions they ponder don’t have an answer, it’s a battle they fight their entire school career. Just as explained before, this overwhelming thought intrudes on their learning process. It doesn’t matter if they are labeled “gifted” at this point because they are no longer paying attention in class. Their focus is entirely on who they should be based on what they want personally and the path the teacher has chosen for them. Children soon pick a side, leaving the other behind, but this is without reaching their full potential of course.

Placing children in groups based on their abilities, regardless of whether the labeler views it as positive such as “gifted” or not, can be detrimental to their success (Conlangelo). Children who are told from a young age that they are “gifted” struggle with their identity if they ever start to fall behind (Conlangelo). They are used to academics coming with ease and because teachers have told them their entire life that it was basically their birth right, when more difficult classes appear, they lose their confidence and quit trying. When a child who has been told their whole life that academics come easy for them starts to struggle they don’t know what to do (Conlangelo). Their group assigned to them by teacher flew through the basics to get to the challenging topics leaving behind basic problem solving knowledge and persistence. Struggle was “not supposed to happen to them” and therefore when met with difficulties they lack the persistence to move through the challenge. 

In contrast, kids labeled “slow” use this as an excuse to stop trying to improve because their teacher has given them an out. When a student is behind it is important that they try harder than most other students because they have the most to learn; however, often, the opposite happens. Children labeled “at-risk” become literally at-risk for dropping out of high school (Aviles). This label in high school brings short comings that elementary school teachers can’t imagine. They receive lower grades than many students with disabilities do, dropout rates increase, their GPA averages 1.7, and they are more likely to get arrested in high school and once they graduate (Aviles). All of these things just because they were labeled and felt like they couldn’t be as successful academically. 

Some of these outcomes seem extreme but if it happens to any child, then it should be a system that is no longer part of the public-school system. It is the school board’s responsibility to prepare the youth of this country for life after high school, and in this society more likely – college. If labels have been proven unhelpful or detrimental to any child in a negative way then it is concerning as to why they are still using these outdated teaching techniques. Research and care regarding a solution to the labeling dilemma needs to be taken seriously.
