The Language We Use to Talk about Students

by Sarah B. Ottow and Jennifer Noorjanian

Language matters, especially in how we talk about students. In the guidebook, The Language Lens for Content Classrooms (2nd ed.), Ottow urges all educators to reflect on the language they use when talking about (and thinking about!) students. See this adapted excerpt from Chapter 2:

Going Beyond Asset-Based Language to Equity-Based Language

As part of your language lens, I’d like to invite you to not just embrace asset-based language and thinking but equity-based language and thinking. To show you what I mean, consider the differences between these three statements about the same student:

1. Jorge doesn't have any background knowledge or skills in math. It’s impossible to reach him, and he’s lazy.

2. Let me try to see what math knowledge I can activate and build on with Jorge. Also, what motivates him?

3. What blind spot or bias might I have that leads me to believe that Jorge has no background knowledge when that’s not true about any learner?

Sentence #1 is extremely deficit-based. Not only that, but the word lazy is considered derogatory because it places a value on Jorge himself as a person, not his behaviors. The term lazy can stigmatize people as an ableist term and not truly address the root cause of disengagement. As Pollack (2017) states, “What we say about students’ abilities and potential shapes how students feel about themselves and how adults offer students opportunities to learn” (p. 127). Language matters, so let’s focus on the students’ behaviors and seek to understand why their behaviors impede their readiness to learn. If we use absolutes like doesn’t have any, none, never, and always, we minimize the human nuances students bring to the classroom and begin to create stereotype-producing thinking processes. We aren’t using actual evidence to support the student; we are just making judgments.

Let’s look at the other two sentences. Sentence #2 is asset-based. Here, we aren’t blaming the student; instead, we are looking more expansively into what skills Jorge may bring and what factors may be influencing Jorge’s motivation. We see motivation as a within-system/classroom issue, not a within-child issue. We are humanizing him, not otherizing him. In other words, nothing is wrong with Jorge. The question becomes, What is wrong with the learning environment? How can we improve what we do to reach Jorge? 

Sentence #3 is—you guessed it--the equity-based version because we go towards self-inquiry to analyze our thinking. We consider that we ourselves have the solution if we acknowledge that Jorge comes with strengths that our biases may overshadow. Here’s another example from a school I’ve supported with SLIFE students. Instead of framing their English Language Development class as such in their course catalog, they named their language acquisition course Leadership Academy, where the students learned English by choosing current events to study and debate each other. What an equity-based approach!

All in all, getting to know our students is complex yet paramount to effective MLL schooling. These factors affecting school success may be below the surface, and when we get to know those factors, they can shed some light on ways to build on students’ strengths. Through the ideas presented in this chapter, I offer you the chance to go deeper by getting to know your students’ strengths and backgrounds so you can integrate key pieces of who they are into your lesson planning and overall pedagogical approach. Be aware, though, that with our new learning about being culturally responsive, educators can feel some awkwardness or awareness that Zaretta Hammond (2015) refers to as “conscious incompetence” (p. 153). It’s okay to be in a state of I don’t know what I don’t know. It’s okay to realize that as educated educators, we may not be fully up to speed on effectively getting to know our diverse learners or integrating who they are into our classrooms. We also need not stereotype students or their families but rather move towards a multicultural, democratic schooling that includes all. The important first/next step, however, is to start the process of being more culturally and linguistically responsive, and you can start today!

I also share some specific educator moves for all educators to take to move towards equity for English learners, as follows (from a piece I wrote for Learning Forward’s Learning Professional): 

  • Model respect for diverse groups and exhibit curiosity for ongoing improvement in your own development to meet all learners’ needs.

  • Use inclusive language like “our students” and “What can we do?” for more cohesion and collaboration.

  • Reframe deficit language like “those students don’t know English” to “our English learners are learning English, which is a complex process that we can help accelerate.”

  • Intentionally seek ways to work together to focus on schoolwide priority instructional practices that boost academic language development for English learners and all students.

  • Celebrate growth in students and teams, not just proficiency, so the school's culture recognizes risk-taking and incremental steps toward goals.

A District Example: Milford Public Schools, MA EL Coordinators

Confianza has been fortunate to work with many coaches and instructional leaders in our work. One group of English Learner Coordinators in Milford Public Schools, Massachusetts, is especially thoughtful about what language is used to discuss students and how to respond to everyday bias and stereotypes revealed in school discussions. The coordinators support educators and students in many spaces, including curriculum development, co-teaching strategies, instructional coaching, progress monitoring, data analysis, Tier I and Tier II instruction, MTSS structures, English learner success plans, EL cumulative folder paperwork and processes, Talking Points two-way school-parent communication and partnerships, etc.

The team came up with some specific meeting conversation norms to “normalize” how to hold one another accountable to asset-based, equitable language in team discussions and all other school spaces:

  1. Model respect for diverse groups and exhibit curiosity for ongoing improvement in our own development to meet all our learners’ needs.

  2. Use inclusive language like “Our students” and “What can we do?” for cohesion,  collaboration, and shared responsibility.

  3. Reframe deficit language like, “Those students don’t know English” to “Our English learners are learning English, which is a complex process that we can help accelerate.”

  4. Intentionally seek ways to work together to focus on schoolwide priority instructional practices that boost academic language development for English learners and all students.

  5. Celebrate growth in students and teams, not just proficiency, so the school's culture recognizes risk-taking and incremental steps toward goals.

  6. Describe students respectfully by using actions/behaviors, not adjectives (i.e. “That student’s skills are low.” vs. “That student is low”…or “How can we tap into the student’s background knowledge?” vs. “That student doesn’t have background knowledge in that.”)

  7. Question absolutes (like none, never, always) and seek data to substantiate claims.

  8. Validate colleagues' concerns and frustrations while moving forward with holding each other to asset-based language. “I hear you. Let’s reframe that to ________________.”

By prioritizing equity in language, we acknowledge and affirm all individuals' diverse identities, lived experiences, and perspectives. Explicit conversation norms create a welcoming, inclusive environment where everyone feels empowered to contribute authentically. Asset-based language through an equity lens also helps to dismantle oppressive structures and biases that may be present in traditional communication norms. It promotes fairness and justice by challenging discriminatory language and fostering a culture of equality for and among our staff, students, families, and community. Ultimately, holding each other to equity-based language strengthens our relationships, builds trust, and enhances the overall effectiveness of the instruction we provide students, who are at the heart of all our decision-making processes.

To Further Your Learning:

References:

  • Pollack, M. (2017) Schooltalk: Rethinking What We Say About—and to—Students Every Day. New York: The New Press.

  • Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement and Rigor Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Anti-Bias Education, Leading for Equity, Curriculum and InstructionSarah Ottow1b, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b