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 classrooms. 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 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 Unfortunately, school boards frequently put systems in place that are outdated or proven unhelpful. Labeling children based on a teacher or researcher’s opinion is a quick solution to an extremely complex problem; but, the intricacy 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 labeling school children Visual Auditory Kinesthetic (VAK) learning is actually causing more harm than good. This technique divides students into three types of learners based on standardized tests and then proceeds to use methods specific to that style to teach them. For example, if a student was labeled a “Visual learner”, the teacher would provide him with pictures or symbols when learning new material. The popularity of this theory was sparked when people attempted to explain why everyone learns differently and cater to everyone’s academic needs. Labeling students Visual, Auditory, or Kinesthetic learners seemed like an easy way to teach to the student’s respective capability levels. Some even pride themselves on teaching this way. The issue remains teachers ignoring the facts of labeling’s harmful effect on students which causes detrimental outcomes on the student’s future learning experiences. This system focuses on the separate parts of the brain, rather than using the connectedness to their advantage. Insert BIO info about brain’s connectedness. What’s truly upsetting is that even with biological proof that it is more insidious to focus on one sensory modality 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. The myth of VAK learning being beneficial is still prevalent today because teaching a diverse classroom how to do something using one method is not going to be effective; however, what is not being noticed is that 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 can make 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 labeled, they are told they can only learn in one way, leading them to stop paying attention when taught in a way not specifically for their grouping. They are unknowingly being trained to believe that only one method of teaching works for them and when they encounter a teacher in elementary school and beyond 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.” When students block out of other methods, it could also hinder them from learning in specific subjects. For example, even if someone was an “Auditory learner”, it would still 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 for every student is more effective than singling out a different one for each student. Students simply 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 title mean tot encase multiple students. Rather, they 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, bettering their understanding and making the concept more concrete. Furthermore, while it may take more ways of explaining it to another child, it doesn’t mean that the time they understand it will be through the same method of teaching as another subject. Someone who is outstanding at math, might need extra help in reading comprehension; therefore, they don’t belong to one “type of student.” Further proving that labeling students is not beneficial.

Every child learns and develops differently; however, by telling a child how they learn a teacher could potentially be setting them up for long-term intellectual struggle later on in school. By being told their entire life that they are “gifted” or “slow”, students will learn to believe it. Regardless of how long it takes a child to understand new information, it never means they are incapable of learning. Rather, labels force them to learn that they can’t learn (even though it is physically not possible for the brain to be unable to learn) instead of trying to perform well on the school. Labels decide whether or not they think they are smart, who their friends are, how hard they try in school, and ultimately their future success. 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 obscure example 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. This student never has the chance to decide for themselves what they like and dislike about the learning process because the are too busy being told “what is best for them.” By labeling a child in the classroom, teachers limit their children’s ability to grow and learn. 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, telling children something so powerful that it could determine their likelihood of success sets limits and boundaries for how they believe they can receive new information. 

When creating lesson plans, one thing many teachers do not consider is that learning something new physically changes every student’s brain regardless of a their label. New neural connections sent through the synapses alter the brain’s pathways when one practices strengthening the connection which leads to 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, they practice incorrectly repeatedly until it is engrained in their brain (Morris). Because of LTP, the connections made during the homework practice are stronger allowing the knowledge stick with the student longer making it extremely hard for a teacher to undo (Morris). To a student who has learned and then practiced new information incorrectly, it becomes more difficult to correct the information in their brain because not only do they have to make new connections, but the old connections require undoing as well (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 not only their personal lives, but also potentially their academic success (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 will suppress 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 their teacher believes in them, then they wonder why they should care about their own success (Pierson). Human connection within the classroom is vital to a child’s classroom experience and knowing that the teacher thinks that the other kids are smarter than them 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 even trying (Anaslone). Instead of placing harsh labels on innocent children based on their situation outside of the classroom, teachers should put more thought into the emotions of every student. Different information is processed by each child differently and some children will struggle more in certain subjects compared to others (Morris). A student is not born with different capabilities; learning is based on prior knowledge and therefore, 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, especially if it can be controlled by the teacher. 

Another way labeling effects school children is through the societal stereotypes that each label carries. 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 belongs with the “gifted” students, 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 miniscule in a world full of problems but for kids, their friends are extremely important to their success (because they can aid in emotion regulation). They ponder these questions but they all lack answers, so 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 their internal conflict of who they should be. Should they follow what they want personally and the path the teacher has chosen for them through a label she decided for him? Children soon pick a side, leaving the other behind, but this is without reaching their full potential in either.

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 accustomed to academics coming with ease and because teachers have told them their entire life that it was basically their birth right, difficult classes can cause them to 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, foundational 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). By distinguishing students in the way, the schools can add a level of emotional distress to the student’s mental health that lead to further academic shortcomings and a lack of social development (Aviles). This distress makes a cycle of negativity and inhibitors for student success that can snowball throughout the student’s entire academic career. In this way, a label in high school can bring 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 received this label and consequently felt like they could not be as successful academically. 

Some of these outcomes seem extreme but if even one child’s success is vulnerable, 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, whether that menas in college or in the country’s workforce. Labels have been proven unhelpful and sometimes detrimental to children in school which leads the glaring question of why teachers are still using these outdated teaching techniques. Research and care regarding a solution to the labeling dilemma needs to be taken seriously.
