Home / Glossary / Special Needs
Special Needs
Also written: Special-needs, Special need
euphemism-avoidanceevolving-usageperson-first-language
At a glance
Source-by-source
“Avoid using these terms when describing a person with a disability or the programs designed to serve them, with the exception of government references or formal names of organizations and programs. … The term "functional needs" is preferred when a term is required.”
NCDJ — the chapter's anchor — directs writers to avoid "special needs," except in government references or formal program names, and to name the specific disability instead. Where a general term is needed, it prefers "functional needs." It also notes AP style urges avoiding "special education" in favor of describing the specific services.
“Don’t use “special needs,” “specially abled””
Sierra Club's equity language guide lists "special needs" and "specially abled" among terms not to use, within a bulleted set of disability-language substitutions (for example, "wheelchair user" rather than "confined to a wheelchair").
“TERM TO AVOID … SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE … special needs … person with a disability … Use of person-first and identity-first language rather than condescending terms”
The APA's second-edition guide places "special needs" in its "term to avoid" table, offering "person with a disability" as the alternative. The table's comment frames the swap as using person-first or identity-first language in place of condescending terms.
“Avoid using these terms when describing a person with a disability or the programs designed to serve them … The term functional needs is preferred when a term is required.”
The Diversity Style Guide's entry, which aggregates NCDJ's wording, advises avoiding "special needs" when describing a person or a program (outside government and formal names), citing the specific disability instead and preferring "functional needs" when a general term is required.
Audience notes
- General note
- Journalists and editors. Name the specific disability rather than reaching for "special needs." NCDJ and DSG carve out one exception: government references and formal program or organization names (for example, an agency's "special education" department) — keep those as written.
- General note
- Advocates and internal comms. When a general term is genuinely required, the sources point to "functional needs" (NCDJ, DSG) or person-first "person with a disability" (APA) rather than "special needs" or its paired euphemisms "specially abled" / "differently abled."
- General note
- Watch the paired euphemisms. Sierra Club rejects "specially abled" alongside "special needs," and APA's table lists "differently abled" in the same avoid column. Substituting one euphemism for another doesn't resolve the objection the sources raise.
Synthesis
The four sources agree: avoid “special needs.” NCDJ — the chapter’s anchor — and the Diversity Style Guide both direct writers to name the specific disability and to reserve “functional needs” for the rare case where a general term is required. The two are really one position: DSG’s entry reproduces NCDJ’s wording almost verbatim, so they share a lineage rather than corroborating each other independently. Sierra Club and APA arrive at the same avoid from different framings. Sierra Club lists it flatly among terms not to use; APA files it in a “term to avoid” table and offers the person-first “person with a disability.”
The shared objection is that “special,” applied to disability, euphemizes rather than describes — it marks a person as different while avoiding the plain word for the difference. NCDJ states the reasoning directly: the term “euphemistically stigmatizes that which is different.” The sources don’t split on whether to avoid it; they differ only in the suggested replacement, and even that difference is small. NCDJ and DSG prefer “functional needs” when a general term is unavoidable; APA prefers “person with a disability.”
For a communicator, name the disability where you can, and where you need a general term, use “functional needs” or “person with a disability” rather than “special needs.” The one carve-out the sources agree on is government and formal program names — “special education” as a department title, or an agency’s “exceptional student services” — which stay as written even where the descriptive use would be avoided. This page pairs with disabled.
History note
“Special needs” entered American usage during the early-twentieth-century expansion of special education, as a general label for students served by those programs. NCDJ and DSG both trace it to that special-education era. The sources here, written 2021–2023, reflect a now-broad consensus that the descriptive use stigmatizes — while noting that “special education” persists as a formal program name in many school systems, with some government bodies using alternatives like “exceptional student services.”
Related terms