You have probably heard the phrase “special needs” used to describe children who require additional support. It is common in conversations about disability, education and child development. But what does the phrase actually mean?
The answer is less straightforward than it may seem.
“Special needs” is not a specific diagnosis or disability. It is a broad expression that has been used to describe children who may need additional support because of a disability, developmental difference, learning difficulty, communication difference, health condition or other circumstance. The problem is that the phrase can cover such a wide range of experiences that it tells us very little about the individual child.
A child who uses a wheelchair, a child with Down syndrome, an autistic child and a child who needs temporary educational support could all potentially be described as having “special needs.” Yet their experiences and support requirements may be completely different.
Why did we start using the phrase?
The popularity of “special needs” did not necessarily come from bad intentions. For many years, words such as disabledor disability were heavily associated with stigma, limitation and negative stereotypes. “Special needs” was therefore sometimes adopted as a softer, seemingly kinder alternative.
But trying to make a word sound softer does not necessarily make it more respectful.
A 2016 study published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications examined how people were perceived when described as having “special needs,” having a disability, having a specific disability, or having no disability label. The study involved 530 adults. Participants tended to view people described as having “special needs” more negatively than those described as having a disability or a specific disability. The researchers concluded that “special needs” was an ineffective euphemism.
That does not mean that everyone who uses the phrase is being disrespectful. In fact, language preferences can differ among families, professionals and disabled people themselves. But it does suggest that replacing the word disability with special needs does not necessarily remove stigma.
Why is the phrase increasingly discouraged?
One problem is that “special” can make ordinary human needs sound separate from everyone else's.
Children with disabilities still need friendship, education, play, communication, safety, affection, independence and opportunities to participate. What may differ is the support, accommodation or accessibility required to access those things.
The United Nations Office at Geneva explicitly advises against using “special needs” as a general term for persons with disabilities, describing the word “special” in this context as a euphemism that can be condescending. Its guidance recommends more neutral and specific language instead.
The Journal of Pediatric Psychology similarly advises against euphemisms such as “special needs” when referring to people or groups with disabilities, while recognizing that terminology can vary by context and that some established expressions, such as “children with special health care needs,” remain in medical literature.
This is an important distinction: the goal is not to create a new rule that nobody may ever use the words “special needs.” The goal is to encourage language that is clearer, more respectful and more useful.
Be specific about the child and the support
Instead of saying:
“She is a special-needs child.”
we can say:
“She has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair.”
Instead of:
“He has special needs.”
we might say:
“He is autistic and uses an AAC device to communicate.”
Or, when the diagnosis is not relevant:
“He benefits from additional support with communication.”
The difference is important. The second descriptions tell us something meaningful about the child and what may help them participate.
The United Nations recommends avoiding unnecessary labels while also making disability visible when it is relevant. It recommends person-centred language such as “children with disabilities” and emphasizes that people may have different preferences about how they identify.
The child is not the whole problem
There is another reason this conversation matters.
The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) understands functioning and disability within a context that includes environmental factors. In other words, what a child can do and how much they can participate is not determined only by an individual impairment; the surrounding environment also matters.
A child who uses a wheelchair may encounter greater restrictions in a building without ramps. A child who communicates differently may struggle in an environment that offers only one way to communicate.
The difficulty is real. But sometimes the barrier is not only within the child; it is also in the environment around them.
This perspective is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that children with disabilities should enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children and have their views taken seriously in matters affecting them.
So, what should we say?
There is no need to be frightened of getting disability language “perfect.” A good starting point is simply to be specific, respectful and willing to listen.
Instead of automatically saying “special needs,” consider:
“child with a disability”
“child with Down syndrome”
“autistic child,” when this reflects the person's or community's preferred identity language
“child who needs additional communication support”
“child who uses a wheelchair”
or simply describe the particular support the child needs.
Most importantly, remember that a child is not a collection of needs.
The question should not only be, “What special needs does this child have?”
A better question is:
“What does this child need to participate, belong, communicate, learn and live a meaningful life?”
That shift may seem small, but it changes where we place our attention: from finding a softer label for a child to understanding the child and creating the support they need.
And perhaps that is what inclusive language should ultimately do, not make disability invisible, but help us see the person more clearly.
References
Gernsbacher, M. A., Raimond, A. R., Balinghasay, M. T., & Boston, J. S. (2016). “Special needs” is an ineffective euphemism. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0025-4. Springer
Modi, A. C., Beal, S. J., Thurston, I. B., Valrie, C., Wu, Y. P., & Duncan, C. L. (2024). Editorial: Recommendations on inclusive language and transparent reporting relating to diversity dimensions for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology and Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 49(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsad094. OUP Academic
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Article 7—Children with disabilities. United Nations Enable. United Nations
United Nations Office at Geneva. (n.d.). Disability inclusive language guidelines. United Nations. The United Nations Office at Geneva
World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). World Health Organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment