Why Schools Should Embrace Asset-Based Language Over Deficit-Based Language

The language we use in our daily interactions in schools holds immense power. It shapes perceptions, influences behaviors, and empowers or marginalizes students, staff, and communities. In this article, we delve into the significance of shifting from deficit-based language to asset-based language in education, exploring its implications in various contexts and advocating for a more inclusive and empowering linguistic approach.

Why language matters

Language is powerful. The words adults use to talk to and about students and their families matter. As Nelson Mandela reminds us, “Without language, one cannot talk to people and understand them; one cannot share their hopes and aspirations, grasp their history, appreciate their poetry, or savor their songs.”

Throughout the history of public education in the United States, our school system was developed and continues to be based on a deficit-based view of students, families, and communities, which then contributes to a “deficit” or reactive system.

The language of education has stemmed from this deficit-based system and thinking, and well-meaning educators continue to cause harm to students and families by using this deficit-based language.

A deficit view of individuals different from ourselves becomes reflected in the deficit language we use about individuals different from us. This deficit language, in turn, can blame students and families for student failure. This deficit language then informs practices that become deficit-based as well.

What is deficit-based language or thinking?

Deficit-based language and thinking operate on the premise of identifying shortcomings or deficiencies within individuals or communities. It perpetuates a narrative of inadequacy, blaming individuals for their circumstances rather than examining systemic inequities. This language can range from labeling to overt stereotyping, and its impact extends far beyond mere words. It reinforces harmful narratives, undermines self-esteem, and perpetuates cycles of marginalization and exclusion in schools and society at large. For the person or group being talked about, deficit-based language can have a stigmatizing effect and impact identity, behavior, and even student performance.

The idea of deficit-based thinking came from the work of Richard Valencia, who first described a deficit ideology in his book The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Valencia frames deficit-based thinking as “the notion that students (particularly those of low income, racial/ethnic minority background) fail in school because such students and their families have internal defects (deficits) that thwart the learning process (for example, limited educability, unmotivated; inadequate family support). Deficit thinking, an endogenous theory, ‘blames the victim’ rather than examining how the schools are structured to prevent certain students from learning.”

Additionally, Paul Gorski defines deficit ideology as “ … a worldview that explains and justifies outcome inequalities – standardized test scores or levels of educational attainment, for example – by pointing to supposed deficiencies within disenfranchised individuals and communities.”

Gorski explains that deficit thinking focuses on what is wrong with the student/family/community, what is not working, what is lacking, what they cannot do, or what they do not have. A deficit ideology blames students and families for low student achievement rather than examining the systemic and structural inequalities that perpetuate low performance.

Examples of deficit-based language in education

The language we use to refer to how we educate students can perpetuate a deficit perspective. What follows are eight different identities for which we provide guidance on asset-based, person-first, inclusive language.

Avoid these deficit-based terms:

• clustering
• tracking
• ability-grouping
• the intervention kids
• the extension kids
• inclusion classroom
• inclusion program
• inclusion kids
• included – recess, arts, lunch
• subgroups
• the bilinguals
• the monolinguals
• the at-risk kids
• minority
• pull-out
• push-in (We say, in a caring and loving community, no one is pushing or pulling anyone around. Simply use the phrase “providing services in the classroom.”)
• the transition kids (or whatever label we use to refer to students who are new to the district)
• Refugee kids
• Illegals

What is asset-based language or thinking?

In contrast, asset-based language and thinking (also known as strength-based language) focuses on recognizing and highlighting the strengths, talents, and resources that individuals and communities possess. It reframes the narrative from deficit to abundance, fostering empowerment, resilience, and inclusivity. Asset-based language promotes a more holistic understanding of individuals’ capabilities and contributions by acknowledging and celebrating the diverse assets within communities.

Luis Moll and colleagues developed the phrase “funds of knowledge” to describe the household and cultural knowledge and skills within families — all strengths that they bring to school that may be in contrast to White, middle-class norms.

Asset-based language also includes person-first language. Person-first language means that we put the person first before any diagnosis or label. However, some individuals, for example, who identify with a disability, prefer that their disability come first prior to the person. In this way, it’s best to simply ask a person how they would like to be referred to – – person first or not.

Using asset-based language is one of the first steps in interrupting the patterns of marginalization and inequities within a school system. Asset-based language focuses on what the student/family/community can do and what skills, gifts, and knowledge they have.

Impact on education and learning environments

The language used in educational settings plays a critical role in shaping students’ experiences and outcomes. Asset-based language brings to the forefront the structural and systemic inequities in schools that educators have control over, which can impact students and families in significant ways.

Educators, including school leaders and teachers, should practice asset-based language with all identities and their intersections. This approach starts with awareness and conscientious language and evolves to broader asset-based thinking, which can significantly impact equity in any given education system.

“Language is very powerful. Language does not just describe reality. Language creates the reality it describes.” – Desmond Tutu

A comparison between deficit-based and asset-based approaches highlights the transformative potential of mindset and linguistic shifts. However, it is important to recognize that asset-based thinking is not just about being positive and using better language. Asset-based thinking centers the humanity of the child, family, and community first and works to affirm identity and culture. It informs policy and practice, the design and construction of systems, and how individuals experience those systems. Studies have found that exclusionary discipline policies and practices (which negatively impact learning and achievement) disproportionately impact students who are minoritized, students who receive special education services, and students who experience poverty. These harmful policies and practices can be linked to the manifestation of deficit-based thinking in schools about children and families who are minoritized, who receive special education services, and those who experience poverty.

Influence on social and cultural narratives

Beyond the classroom, language shapes societal narratives and perceptions. An analysis of media, politics, and societal discourse reveals the pervasive influence of deficit-based language in reinforcing stereotypes and perpetuating inequality. However, research showcases the power of assets-based language in challenging dominant narratives and reshaping societal perceptions. Individual educators play a crucial role in promoting positive language shifts by advocating for linguistic equity and challenging oppressive language practices.

Steps toward an asset-based approach in education

Recognizing and eradicating problematic language from our schools isn’t about avoiding the challenges confronting our communities or adhering to a notion of “political correctness.” On the contrary, it compels us to communicate more clearly and precisely, steering clear of harmful stereotypes.

Steps to implement asset-based thinking and language in education include the following:

1. As an individual, it starts with an awareness of the language you use. Start by breaking habits and reframing dialogue using person-first, assets-based language.
2. Make assets-based thinking/language/practice part of a “group agreement” and help each other remember and model this. Support and hold colleagues accountable and address deficit thinking each time it presents itself, and turn conversations back to assets of the student and family.
3. Consider using Paul Gorski’s book Reaching and Teaching Students in Poverty as a book study with staff. This research-based book takes an assets-based perspective of poverty with practical strategies for educators.
4. Ensure all district communications (e.g., school newsletter, staff announcements, faculty meeting agenda, and data reports) rely on assets-based language.

Adopting this linguistic approach may encounter resistance and barriers despite the benefits of asset-based language. Common challenges include ingrained biases, institutional norms, and fear of change. Strategies for navigating resistance and promoting understanding include education, facilitated dialogue, and inclusive language policies informed by equity non-negotiables.

Professional learning opportunities and equity workshops can be a great starting point for operationalizing assets-based language in your school.

Examples of Asset-Based Language in Education Practice

One district realized that when reviewing and revising their board policy, many of the board policies were written with deficit language. Thus, when they engaged in their annual board policy update, they included in that update the adoption of asset-based, person-first language throughout all the policies. As a principal in this district explained, “The one major piece that jumped out at me was the lack of “person first” language that filled these policies.  A couple of examples would be Special Education Students and ELL Students, rather than Students with a disability and Students receiving ELL services.  Also, we changed “ELL” to “ML” (multi-lingual) since we focus on the fact that a student who is multilingual has a tremendous asset there, versus someone who is learning English like we are trying to fix a problem that they have because they don’t speak it proficiently. I’ll also add that we made changes to “he/she”, “her/his”, etc. language as well by using “They/Their” in place of these references out of respect for a person’s individual identity.

Examples of Asset-Based Language in Schools

Below, we show an example of this district’s school board policy before and then after shifting to asset-based language.

Before Considering Asset-Based Language: The Board of Education recognizes that within the District there are students whose primary language is not English. The Board shall provide educational and support services for students to help them acquire English language skills that will enable them to function successfully in an all-English classroom and help them meet established academic standards. The degree of curricular and instructional modification or accommodation, the type of support services, and their duration shall be determined individually, based on student need.

After Considering Asset-Based Language:  The District shall provide appropriate identification and transition services for District students who are identified as English learners. The purpose of these services is to develop English language skills that will enable the students to function successfully in an all-English classroom and complete the District’s required curriculum. These services shall include the identification of students who are Multi-Lingual Learners (MLS), the implementation of curricular and instructional modifications, the assessment of the Multi-Lingual Learner (ML) student’s academic progress, identification of ML students that achieve English Language Proficiency (ELP), and continued monitoring of HELP students. The degree of modification, the duration, and the type of services shall be determined individually and shall be based on the needs of each student.

Shifting Grade Card Language. In another school, while working to shift their language from deficit to asset-based in all their school communications, the staff realized that their student report cards could be revised to be more asset-based. Thus, staff collaborated on revising the language that ended up being adopted across all the elementary and middle schools in the district.

Shifting Language During Parent Teacher Conferences. Another school worked with staff on shifting from deficit to asset-based language and, in doing so, practiced how to engage in parent/teacher conferences differently by staff using asset-based, person-first inclusive language when meeting with the parents. They reflected afterward on how much more positive these conferences were compared to previously when they were not intentional about being asset-based.

Calling Each Other In with Language. As educators shift their language to be asset-based, we will invariably forget and fall back into deficit-based language. Educators have successfully role-played these scenarios about how to gently remind staff about asset-based language when they hear deficit-based language being used.

Deficit to Asset-Based Language Self-Check

1. In all my communications with students, families, and staff am I using asset-based language at all times? (e.g., announcements, newsletters, emails, etc.).
2. Are we using asset-based language about students and families in all my meetings with colleagues? When we slip up, are we effectively “calling each other in” to continue to develop our collective equity capacity?
3. How could our current structure for educating students in our school reinforce deficit thinking about students even though we think we are helping?

Conclusion

Language is not just a means of communication but a catalyst for social change. Shifting from deficit to asset thinking, language, and practice begins with ourselves. We must continually critically self-reflect on the deficit perspectives we hold about others whose identities, histories, and experiences are different from ourselves and how we perpetuate the deficit view in our language and thoughts.

The shift from deficit-based language to assets-based language is not just a linguistic change but a transformative shift in perspective. By recognizing and valuing the assets within individuals and communities, we can create more inclusive, resilient, and empowered students and more positive educational experiences and outcomes for all.

Deficit-based language vs. assets-based language examples and with different identities

 

Deficit-based language	Assets-based language
Special education student or special ed kid	Student receiving special educational  services
English Learner	Student who is bilingual, multi-lingual
Monolingual
Wheelchair-bound	Student who uses a wheelchair
Autistic students*	Students with autism
Homosexual	Person who is LGBTQIA+, or Gay, Lesbian
He/she	They/them (mitigating mis-gendering)

*Importantly, some individuals prefer to be called by their preferred identity as a way to reclaim that specific identity and power from being marginalized. For example, a person who identifies as autistic may prefer to say, “I am autistic” rather than “I am a person with autism.”  Or, someone who identifies as Black or African American may reclaim their racial identity by referring to themself as a “Black male.”

In all ways, individuals reclaim on behalf of themselves; others cannot reclaim for anyone but themselves. Therefore, when we describe or identify other people, we want to use person-first, asset-based, inclusive language unless the person asks us to do otherwise.

Language, race, ethnicity, and culture

The United States is a nation of immigrants, and each racial and ethnic group brings inherent assets to the country’s pluralistic makeup. Language addressing the race/ethnicity of groups and individuals should reflect and respect all racial, ethnic, and cultural heritages.

When discussing the race/ethnicity of individuals or groups, use the following:

• Native Americans/American Indian/Indigenous Americans
• Asian-Americans/Asian Pacific Islanders (Ethnic background specific: Japanese American, Taiwanese-American, Korean-American, Hmong, etc.)
• Black and/or African American
• Latinx-American/Hispanic
• Muslim American

Refer to individuals or groups based on individual preferences. Preferences may differ over time and geographic regions in the U.S. When unsure, simply ask the person(s) how they prefer to be addressed.

Avoid language that portrays groups in stereotypic ways or generalizing statements, such as:

• “All Asians are good at math and science.”
• “Native Americans are alcoholics.”
• “All Muslim Americans are terrorists.”

Language and students who are multilingual

Unfortunately, in the U.S., we often do not value that students from other countries come to the U.S. knowing/speaking their home language, and thus, learning English is a second language for them. When discussing this population of learners, avoid using English Language Learner (ELL) and Limited English Proficient (LEP), as these terms define the student based on their acquisition of English.

To demonstrate the value of multilingualism, use the terms “students who are multilingual” or “students who are linguistically diverse.”

Similarly, we do not want to refer to students for whom English is their first language as “monolinguals,” as language divides. These students are learning another language (as all students in the school should be learning) and also should be referred to as multilingual. These terms emphasize growth in both English and the native language of the individual. Some students who are linguistically diverse receive language services and receive various labels based on their state (e.g., ELL, ESOL, EL). To demonstrate how we place this label on students, we can use the phrase “students receiving ELL services” to differentiate these students from students who are linguistically diverse and not receiving ELL services.

Language and (dis)abilities

Language about (dis)ability often is discriminatory and focuses on stereotypes associated with a (dis)ability. We write “(dis)ability” with parentheses around the “dis” to emphasize the proactive, asset focus on abilities.

When referencing (dis)abilities, avoid singling out an individual’s (dis)ability simply for the sake of identification. Too often, individuals with (dis)abilities are identified as a group with a disability that depersonalizes and makes the individual invisible.

Some tips to remember:

• If you must discuss a (dis)ability, focus on student assets, gifts, abilities, and interests.
• Focus on describing the facts about the (dis)ability.
• Avoid using words that imply victimization or create negative stereotypes about those with a (dis)ability. For example, don’t use descriptors such as “victim” or “sufferer” for someone with a (dis)ability or disease, identify the disease.
• Avoid using words such as “poor,” “unfortunate,” or “afflicted.”
• Identify an individual as a person  with disabilities rather than a stereotypical one such as a “disabled person.”
• Don’t use “blind person.” Instead, use “individual or person with a vision impairment.”
• Don’t use “retarded” or “slow learner.” Instead, use “student or person with cognitive or intellectual disability.”
• Do not accept student/adult use of the term “idiot,” which was a word used to denigrate individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Language and gender

Language often conveys hierarchical power relations between members of different genders. This dichotomy acknowledges only the existence of a binary perspective of gender as male/female. Such language reinforces the dominant view of males and male-identified characteristics as superior and /or normative.

Use language that eliminates references to gender. Use language that is gender-neutral and gender-inclusive.

Some guidelines:

• Degender words, but don’t regender them (e.g., degender chairman to a chair, don’t regender it to chairwoman; freshman to first-year student).
• Replace occupational terms containing man and boy, if possible, with terms that include members of either gender. (e.g., fireman to firefighter, manpower to personnel, businessman to businessperson)
• When referring to a group, do not assume the gender of the group/ or individuals in the group (e.g. good morning, ladies).
• Use plural pronouns to reference a group when the gender identity of the individuals is unknown. We prefer always to use the terms “their” and use plural pronouns to avoid the need to use the phrase s/he, which reinforces the gender binary.
• Avoid occupational designations having derogatory -ette and -ess endings (e.g., don’t use “stewardess,” use “flight attendant”).

Language and social class

When referencing individuals’ social class, inappropriate language can lead to characterizing individuals with a temporary and/or social condition as if it were an inherent trait.

Avoid the following terms:

• Poor
• Ghetto
• Underprivileged
• Urban
• At-risk
• Vulnerable
• Economically disadvantaged youth
• Inner-city
• And marginalized.

We also want families/students to be able to self-identify. Thus, though we may view a family as experiencing poverty based on poverty stereotypes, the family themselves may not experience themselves as experiencing poverty. Thus, we prefer the phrase “students/families who identify as experiencing poverty.”

Within schools, we can say, “students receiving free/reduced lunch” or “students with free/reduced lunch status” instead of “economically disadvantaged students.”

Language and sexual identity

We use language to refer to students who are LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexual, questioning). Use sexual identity instead of sexual orientation. Do not use the term “sexual preference” because this suggests sexual orientation is a choice, that a person simply chooses whether to be LGBTIQ+ or not or simply prefers one gender over another. Research supports this, and APA confirms that sexual orientation is not a choice but is biologically determined. Do not use the term “gay lifestyle” or the phrase “lifestyle” in reference to LGBTIQ+ identity. Do not use the word “homosexuals” when referring to LGBTIQ+ individuals, as this historically referred only to males and is dated.