On the other hand, there is a risk of peers, teachers and
administrators reducing children to a label and behaving
towards them according to stereotypes (Virkkunen
et al., 2012). Low expectations triggered by a label,
such as learning difficulties, can become self-fulfilling
prophecy. Special needs labels make the labelled students
vulnerable. Teachers may take a deterministic view that
these students’ ability and potential are fixed and cannot
be changed by additional effort (Hart and Drummond,
2014). Labels can also shape expectations for a group.
For instance, before children with Down’s syndrome
began benefiting from inclusive education, their learning
environments were constrained and their developmental
outcomes often limited. These limits were misinterpreted
as inherent to what such children could achieve
(Buckley, 2000).
When selective admission procedures prevail,
assessments can limit the admission of learners with
special education needs in inclusive settings. In Latvia,
the multidisciplinary commission may recommend that
learners with intellectual disabilities should follow special
programmes and not sit state tests. In Ukraine, not all
learners with special education needs are admitted to
inclusive education (Alisauskiene and Onufryk, 2019).
Socio-economic characteristics can drive special needs
categorization. In Romania, learners from minority or
disadvantaged groups are more likely to be assessed as
having special education needs and barred from enrolling
in mainstream schools (Horga et al., 2016). In Slovakia, the
share of Roma children placed in schools for children with
mild disabilities continues to be disproportionately high
(Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2016).
Most countries recognize and make specific arrangements
to address the needs of learners with special needs.
In some countries, such assessment is conducted by
professional multidisciplinary teams at the local, regional
or national level. These are known as categorization
commissions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Inclusive Resource
Centres in Ukraine and municipal assessment teams in
other countries. Ensuring multidisciplinary assessment for
all learners at any age in every education setting poses a
financial and capacity challenge in many countries, such
as Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the focus may fall on
detecting difficulties rather than potential.
Countries employ a variety of methods and many,
such as Bulgaria, are undertaking reforms (
Box 3.3
). In
some, schools and teachers conduct assessment for
individualized education plans. Hungary, through its
Diagnostic Developmental Testing System, known as
Difer, carries out an initial and mandatory baseline survey
to assess basic skills of school-age children. But many
countries lack well-developed, reliable tools to assess
general and special learning needs and the progress of the
students concerned. In Belarus, a lack of comprehensive
diagnostic tools means that medical diagnoses define
education pathways, often resulting in placement in
segregated special settings that do not take children’s
potential and needs into account. Latvia and Kazakhstan
face difficulties in assessing learners with intellectual
disabilities. In Slovakia, psychological assessment in school
does not fully consider Roma students’ socio-economic
background. The Russian Federation and Serbia lack special
procedures and assessment materials for dyslexia.
Whether labels are formally or informally assigned and
whether they are made public or kept private are important
considerations in assessing labelling’s implications
(Riddick, 2000). Screening and providing evidence-based
general advice to schools on inclusive teaching may work
better than identifying affected students (Tymms and
Merrell, 2006).
The potentially detrimental effects of diagnoses, labels and
categories can be minimized so that they inform rather
than determine practice. In a break from categories defined
in terms of medical conditions, Portugal recently legislated
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
