In a parent meeting at an international bilingual school, attendees deliberate on various points related to their children’s education. By its concept and ethos, the bilingual school in question is a community of children and parents from different nationalities across the globe living in Germany. Thus, the school’s official and transactional languages are German and English. The school laws and curriculum adhere to the German education system with only a few aberrations specific to the bilingual, multicultural nature of the school. Every family associated with this school is, in one way or another, of a multinational disposition. The children are an eclectic mix of intersected cultural backgrounds that, even at face value, enrich the prospects of a future led by these young members of society. The teachers are expected to build on this foundation, to nurture and help the children blossom into the many tentacular possibilities such values incubate.

Yet, given that such a school is firmly tethered to the straight-jacketing policies of the German state¹, whose approach to education is foremost one of conditioning and standardisation of the child according to what is perceived as sociocultural/political values, the effort to activate the imaginative attributes of such a potent community of children and parents often comes off as over-exertion. Nevertheless, the endeavour is worth every ounce of sweat.

During the meeting, an issue was raised about a newly established department for “children with learning difficulties”. The idea is to shape a program and atmosphere that gives additional support to children who are lagging in certain areas of learning compared to their classmates.

As thoughts flew across the room, many word labels were casually thrown around. Some said “children with learning disabilities”; others resorted to using “learning disorder”. These expressions are prosaic in their uncouth reductionism – that much is clear to anyone who makes the slight effort to vet their common sense. However, a quick Google search shows that these are scientifically and legally acceptable terms to describe such a diagnosis. These are labels offered to society by experts in the field, which, by and large, has infiltrated the natural language and reflexive thinking of the everyday person, including well-meaning parents.

At some point, an attendee of the meeting infused the session with a new expression, “children who learn differently” – to circumvent these other obviously stigmatising terminologies. The logic is that by saying “children who learn differently”, the kids in question are accorded a frame that does not put a stamp of inadequacy on their foreheads as a foregone conclusion. Rightfully so, some of the parents raised concerns about stigmatisation.

Context is everything.

I would argue that using “differently” in this context does little to shift away from the problem. At best, it obscures it within a gesture of etiquette that, critically examined, does more to cater to the adult’s discomfort with unintentional discrimination than accord the child self-esteem. What induces such conflation is the instinctual tendency to coat uncomfortable situations in double meanings as a way of demagnetising or disarming its perceived threat.

In a context where the children are of multifarious cultural influences, it is a given that all children learn differently as a natural consequence of their cross-cultural, intersectional upbringing. To say that those with learning difficulties are “learning differently” sets up Difference as the inadequate counterpart to a “normal”, underlined majorly by the assessment of the teachers who, in turn, are at the mercy of the standardising criteria of the German State.

There is a double entendre here: Difference is created within Difference that undermines its overarching premise, if not cancels it out. To say that children with learning challenges “learn differently” in a group or community of kids whose existential disposition is about learning and doing differently is akin to setting up oppositely aligned mirrors that cause counteracting refractions while producing a counterbalancing question: different when compared to what norm? This question need not be attended to. Its sole effect is to detract from the potency of Difference by inciting a needless justification.

Any occasion wherein Difference is deployed as an antithesis to the Normal renders Difference impotent and, by extension, discriminatory. It is locked in a vicious circle of comparative gaze. Every comparison devoid of constructive correlation is reductionist in nature.

Difference is not the antithesis of Normal but rather a promise of possible potentialities that carry, in its nature, the ability to unravel whatever is considered the norm. When used as a palliative rather than seen, accepted and respected for its unconventionality, Difference becomes a means to an end, which does a great disservice to its latent gift to humanity.

To avoid the pitfalls of stigmatisation, we must start with the words we use to conjure teaching and learning concepts. Rather than designate a subset of pupils as “learning differently”, where this mainly serves as a decoy for circumventing the awkwardness of naming their inadequacies, a viable proposition would be to use such expression as “children requiring further assistance in learning” (or CRFAL, if you may). This expression shifts the emphasis of inadequacy or disorder from the child’s subjectivity and places it on the teacher’s methodology. Moreover, since the teachers do the assessment according to set rules for which a child is considered either deficient or not, the burden of proof should be on the teachers – not the children.

A viable long-term strategy could be establishing a system where teachers are trained to assist children who require further assistance in learning. In other words, teachers should be trained in the “ethics and aesthetics of Difference”, ²where concepts, terminologies and tactics of implementation are critically examined.

The aim of this approach is twofold: (1) it removes the burden of inadequacy from the child and places it on the teacher’s methodology and appraisal of Difference; (2) it moulds educational strategies to meet each child’s specific needs and learning styles rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all system of evaluation for which some pupils are singled out as “learning differently”. It recognises that every child has a unique way of perceiving and interacting with the world, and educators must be trained to adapt their teaching methods accordingly. A learning community that offers assistance to the children tailored to their inherent manner of perceiving and reading the world is closest to fulfilling the noble aim of nurturing their subjectivity and grooming their self-esteem.

When it has to do with educating children in a world that is increasingly convoluted by our intensive and extensive movement towards each other (bringing with us the wealth of Difference), the onus is on the adult educators to devise strategies to assist each child according to the specificity of their being-in-the-world. The idea of standardisation is archaic and calls for a total overhaul of the education system/mindset, especially in Europe, where Difference threatens its hegemony. This fear of Difference is detrimental to the evolution of the 21st-century individual and, more so, the children.

All over the globe, enthusiasm for teaching jobs is in rapid decline. Countries all over Europe are experiencing dwindling interest in educating young children at primary and secondary levels. Germany predicts a shortfall of 25,000 teachers by 2025. As of 2020, teachers above 50 years old in Germany amount to 37%. Contrast that with those under 30, which is a meagre 7%. According to UNESCO, 69 million teachers are missing in the labour market worldwide.³

What is in contention here is the future of the child. The disenchantment sweeping across the teaching sector is a wake-up call that demands a reevaluation of our approach to education. By embracing Difference and prioritising multi-contextual learning approaches, we can create a system that equips children with the skills they need to navigate a diverse and ever-changing world. Only then can we truly prepare them for a planetary future where embracing Difference is not only essential but celebrated.

Thus, we must challenge the notion of standardisation and instead prioritise the development of critical thinking skills, flexible social interactions, adaptability, and creativity. These skills will enable children to thrive in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Rather than viewing Difference as a deficiency or an obstacle, we need to recognise it as a source of strength and potential.

1. Despite being an international school, it is a public school funded by the German Government. This is considered as one of the greatest privileges that the school enjoys. ↩︎
2. A term inspired by my conversation with my friend, colleague and collaborator, the Anthropologist Mathangi Krishnamurthy, as we reviewed this essay for publication. ↩︎
3. According to figures gleaned by Arte Weekly Reportage and Euronews: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/11/30/teacher-shortages-worry-countries-across-europe ↩︎