Research School Network: Addressing Educational Disadvantage: Why the Language We Use Matters More Than We Think Addressing Educational Disadvantage: Why the Language We Use Matters More Than We Think

Teachers care deeply about the pupils they serve. We work tirelessly to remove barriers, nurture confidence and open doors to opportunity to create equity for our pupils. Yet even with the best intentions, the language we use to describe pupils can quietly reinforce the very disadvantage we are trying to dismantle. Words shape expectations, expectations shape interactions and interactions shape outcomes.

Marc Rowland captures this power succinctly: ​“The language gap is the disadvantage gap.” At a pupil level, this reminds us that vocabulary, discourse, and the ways children are spoken about and spoken to profoundly influence their identity, confidence and access to learning. From a teacher perspective, it challenges us to confront how our own language — our labels and categorisations of pupils — can unintentionally widen that gap by shaping unconscious biases about what pupils can achieve. 

With this in mind, I have been exploring how everyday terminology can create barriers, how we can shift our language to promote equity and how a collective commitment to reflective practice can transform outcomes for the pupils who need us most.

How Language Creates Unconscious Bias
Unconscious biases are not deliberate judgements. They are automatic
associations shaped by experience, culture and repeated narratives. In
schools, these biases often emerge through the labels we use to categorise pupils. When we repeatedly describe children through deficit-based terminology, we risk:
● lowering expectations
● narrowing opportunities
● influencing grouping decisions
● shaping the level of challenge we offer
● affecting the warmth, patience, or encouragement we extend
● reinforcing fixed mindsets about ability

Even subtle shifts in phrasing can cast pupils as inherently weak, struggling, or ​“less than” — rather than as learners with potential, agency and capacity for growth.

Problematic Terms and the Barriers They Create

1. ​“The Bottom 20%”
Referring to pupils as ​“the bottom 20%” positions them as the lowest
performers in a fixed hierarchy, implying that their place is permanent and unchangeable. This language subtly communicates deficiency and a lack of capability, which can have a profound impact on how pupils see
themselves. When children repeatedly hear or sense that they belong to ​“the bottom,” they may internalise low expectations, begin to doubt their own potential, and experience a decline in confidence and self-worth. Instead of viewing learning as a journey, they may feel perpetually behind, as though they are trying to catch up to a group they will never reach. 

For teachers, this terminology can unconsciously lower the level of challenge offered to these pupils. It can lead to over-scaffolding or reducing the cognitive demand of tasks, not out of neglect but out of misplaced care. Teachers may unintentionally limit opportunities for these pupils to take on leadership roles, engage in rich reasoning, or participate fully in oracy-based activities. The label shapes expectations, and expectations shape practice. 

Shifting language is not about political correctness — it’s about accuracy, equity and possibility. The language we choose should reflect the reality that learning is fluid, not fixed. When we shift our terminology, we shift our mindset. By moving away from labels that imply permanence and deficiency, we begin to focus instead on pupils’ current learning, their context, and the support they need to thrive. This is why reframing ​“the bottom 20%” as ​“the first 20%” is so powerful. It reminds us that these pupils should be the first we plan for, the first we check in with, and the first to receive purposeful, high quality support. They are not at the bottom of anything — they are simply the first in line for our attention, our expertise, and our belief in their potential.

A shift in language is a shift in our own unconscious biases.

2. ​“Disadvantaged Pupils”
Although widely used in policy and funding structures, the term
​“disadvantaged pupils” can inadvertently define children by what they lack rather than what they bring. It risks turning socio-economic context into a personal characteristic, as though disadvantage is something inherent within the child rather than a reflection of external circumstances. For pupils, this can lead to feelings of being labelled, reducing their sense of belonging within the classroom. It may also foster assumptions about their home lives, aspirations, or behaviour — assumptions that can be both inaccurate and harmful.

From a teacher’s perspective, the term can encourage overgeneralisation,
such as the belief that ​“these pupils struggle with…” or ​“these pupils need…” as though they form a homogenous group. Expectations may be lowered under the guise of care, with teachers focusing more on perceived deficits than on strengths, interests, or potential. This deficit lens can narrow the opportunities offered to these pupils and limit the richness of their learning experiences.

To remove these negative connotations and reduce the likelihood of deficit thinking, we need language that describes context, not identity. We need terminology that acknowledges structural barriers without labelling the child.

More equitable alternatives to consider could be:
● Pupils eligible for pupil premium – This is factual, neutral, and policy
aligned. It describes funding eligibility, not personal traits.
● Pupils facing socio-economic barriers – This makes it clear that
disadvantage is a circumstance, not a characteristic.
● Pupils who may benefit from additional support – This focuses on
provision and need rather than background.

Each of these alternatives shifts the narrative away from deficit and towards understanding. They help teachers talk about pupils in ways that are precise, respectful, and aligned with an equity mindset.

3. ​“Lower Attaining / Lower Ability”
Describing pupils as ​“lower attaining” or ​“lower ability” implies that their
capability is fixed rather than reflective of their current stage of learning.
These labels risk cementing the belief that some pupils are inherently less
capable, which can have a significant impact on their mindset. Pupils who
are repeatedly described in this way may develop a fixed mindset, believing that no amount of effort will change their position. This can reduce their willingness to take risks, contribute to discussions or engage in reasoning and problem-solving tasks that are essential for deep mathematical understanding.

For teachers, these terms can influence decisions about task design and
classroom interactions. Pupils labelled as ​“lower ability” may be given
simplified content or fewer opportunities to grapple with rich mathematical ideas. This reduces their exposure to mathematical discourse and limits their access to the very experiences that would help them progress. Over time, the label becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not because of the pupils’ potential, but because of the opportunities they were denied.

To remove these negative connotations and interrupt unconscious bias, we need language that reflects learning as a journey, not a ranking. We need terminology that describes where pupils are now, not who they are.

More equitable alternatives to consider could be:

● Pupils who are developing their understanding of… – This focuses on the learning process. It acknowledges that pupils are building knowledge
and skills, not lacking them.
● Pupils earlier in their learning journey- This frames progress as a 
continuum. It removes hierarchy and emphasises that all pupils are
moving forward.
● Pupils who are not yet secure in… – The word ​“yet” is powerful. It signals potential and growth rather than limitation.
● Pupils working towards age-related expectations – This is already used
in many schools and is neutral, descriptive and aligned with assessment
frameworks.

Each of these terms reframes learning as dynamic, fluid, and responsive. They help teachers focus on what pupils need rather than what they lack. When we stop labelling pupils as ​“lower ability,” we stop defining them by a moment in time. We begin to see them as learners with potential, agency, and capacity for growth.

By shifting our language, we shift our thinking and when we shift our thinking, we shift our practice.

4. ​“More Able / Greater Depth”
Although seemingly positive, labels such as ​“more able” or ​“greater depth” create unhelpful binaries. If some pupils are described as ​“more able,” it implicitly positions others as ​“less able,” reinforcing a fixed hierarchy of capability. These labels also risk conflating early attainment with long-term potential, suggesting that pupils who grasp concepts quickly at one point in time are inherently more capable across all contexts. 

This label carries significant risks for teacher perception and practice. One of the most pervasive misconceptions is the belief that a pupil who
demonstrates depth in one area of mathematics is inherently more capable across all areas. This is rarely the case. Mathematical understanding is domain specific. A child who shows exceptional fluency and reasoning in number may not yet demonstrate the same level of sophistication in geometry, statistics, or measure. Yet once a pupil is labelled as ​“greater depth,”teachers can unconsciously assume a blanket level of capability that does not reflect the nuanced reality of their learning. This misconception can distort planning and provision. Teachers may offer these pupils tasks that are too challenging in some domains, assuming they will cope because of their label. At the same time, they may overlook the need for consolidation or scaffolding in areas where the pupil is still developing understanding. The label becomes a lens through which all learning is viewed, rather than a snapshot of attainment in a specific moment and context.

For pupils given these labels, the pressure to perform can be intense. Their identity may become tied to being ​“good at maths,” which can create fear of failure and reluctance to take on challenging tasks that might expose gaps in understanding. Conversely, pupils not given these labels may be denied opportunities for deeper challenge, even when they are ready for it. Teachers may unintentionally over-challenge those labelled as ​“more able” while under-challenging others, narrowing the range of experiences available to pupils who do not fit the label. This can lead to a widening of gaps that were never rooted in ability, but in access.

The issue is not the recognition of depth itself, but the globalisation of that depth. When a child is labelled as ​“greater depth,” the nuance of their learning journey is lost. Teachers may unintentionally assume consistency where there is variability, and capability where there is still growth. This is how unconscious bias quietly shapes practice: through the belief that a label tells the whole story.

To remove the connotations associated with ​“more able” and ​“greater
depth,” we need language that is: specific rather than general; descriptive
rather than evaluative and focused on learning, not identity.
More equitable alternatives that support accurate teacher thinking and
reduce unconscious bias could be:
● Pupils ready for deeper thinking in…- This focuses on readiness, not
inherent ability. It also emphasises that challenge is contextual.
● Pupils demonstrating a depth of understanding in… – This avoids global
labels and highlights the specific area where depth is observed.
● Pupils showing strong reasoning in…- This shifts the focus to the
mathematical behaviour, not the child’s identity.

Each of these terms helps teachers think more precisely about what pupils can do and what they need next. They prevent the assumption that depth in one domain equates to depth everywhere. They also reduce the risk of unconscious bias by removing labels that imply superiority, hierarchy, or fixed capability.

Most importantly, they keep the focus where it belongs: on learning, not on the learner’s identity. This shift in language supports a culture where all pupils are seen as capable of deep understanding, where challenge is offered equitably, and where no child is defined by a label that oversimplifies their mathematical journey.

Addressing Our Own Unconscious Biases
Changing the language we use in schools has a profound impact on the way we think about pupils and, ultimately, on the opportunities we offer them. When teachers adopt needs-based terminology, expectations naturally rise. Pupils are no longer defined by what they cannot yet do; instead, they are recognised as learners with potential, capable of progress and deserving of challenge. This shift also increases access to rich mathematics. Teachers become more inclined to offer reasoning, problem-solving, and oracy-rich tasks to all pupils, rather than reserving these experiences for a select few. As language becomes more inclusive, classroom talk follows.

Transforming the language we use is not a superficial exercise; it requires a collective commitment across the whole school. This work depends on consistent modelling in meetings, planning conversations and discussions about pupils. It calls for reflective practice — an ongoing awareness of when deficit language begins to creep in and a willingness to pause, reconsider, and reframe. It also involves challenging colleagues with care and professionalism when limiting terminology is used, not to criticise but to support a shared culture of high expectations. In this way, a simple shift in language becomes a powerful lever for equity and progress.

Addressing unconscious bias begins with noticing it. We cannot change what we do not see, so the first step is to pause and interrogate our assumptions. This means asking ourselves what evidence we have for the stories we tell about pupils and whether those stories are rooted in fact or in habit. Replacing labels with descriptions of learning is a powerful way to disrupt these biases.

When we change our language, we change our culture.
When we change our culture, we change our expectations.
When we change our expectations, we change outcomes.

The pupils we teach deserve to be defined by their potential, not their label. They deserve a narrative that lifts them, not limits them and they deserve teachers who are willing to examine their own biases with honesty, humility, and with the willingness to change.

Because if the language gap is the disadvantage gap, then closing that gap begins with us.

Jade Lauricourt - NCETM LLME Equity Lead for Oracy
Assistant Maths Hub Lead
Primary Mastery Specialist
NCETM Accredited SD Lead
NCETM Accredited PD Lead