Disablism

My post of this:
But playing the "I don't want that child sitting next to my child" game isn't helpful. It's NIMBY on a classroom level, and it doesn't teach your child anything about life. Those that have disabilities are part of society and the sooner children (and parents) learn about that and become familiar with that, the sooner we have less of these threads with people not wanting to have to deal with the children at "that table." These are PEOPLE you are talking about. It would be nice if we all could remember that.

Was responded to with this:

Christ on a Bike! Nowhere has the OP said that the other children have disabilities. She has said taey are chatterboxes and a bit lively.
AFYI, not every child who plays up in class has a disability. Believe it or not there are some children who play up for no other reason than they can.

People seem determined to see things where there's nothing to see.
Must be a full moon or something.

well, the thread I'm on didn't get deleted. I got roundly attacked on pedantics by a few prolific posters and then they ventured into "well, hey, none of them really have SNs, we KNOW this - most kids in Y5 and up that are disruptive don't have SNs, they just don't behave."

I'm not sure that works Maddy because as you know, not all disruptive children are disabled and not all disabled children are disruptive.

I do understand the point you are making but it isn't a completely correct analogy.

Jesus Christ.

I said that if I try to discuss anything the Taat thing comes out.

How can we move forward if every thread gets deleted?

The disruptive child is another one of those incidents where we are aware it could be OUR children being talked about, or requested to be moved away from their precious snowflake..

WE all want the best for our children, and no, it isn't right for the school to use other children as support for ours, however, our kids can't be ostracised or made to sit on their own in a corner with no interaction.

Its covert disablism.. again, replace the 'ism' and see if its acceptable.

Move my child away from that muslim
Move my child away from that jewish boy
Move my child away from that Gay boy
Move my child away from that Black/Pakistani/Chinese boy.
Move my child away from that disabled boy.

Its discrimination, they only want their child moved because they don't like something about who that child is.. and its not ok.

What they SHOULD be doing, is asking if the school is adequately supporting the students to enable them all to work well with each other.

If they other child is being a bully, then its different because thats about protecting your child, but again, the school is failing them.

If the ONLY reason, like in that thread, you want your child moved is because you dont like that your child is sat next to someone disruptive/chatterbox/not doing work then you need to ask yourself if you're being discriminatory.

the thread I'm on has descended into the usual "none of the children have SNs, I'm SURE of it" and then they all clatter onto the bandwagon talking about how some of these children don't have SNs they're just naughty and people are just seeing things where there isn't anything.

Deletion message said (not verbatim) they were sorry. They are going to respond but need to think about how to move forward. Deleted as it was rehashing old threads.

yes, it did. TAAT, basically.

I don't get deletion messages on my phone and it's disappeared from my TIO? Did it really get deleted?

Did my thread get deleted?

Fwiw the guest post has gone from the top of active which at least shows they are perhaps seeing the irony.

Really going now.

I'm going to have to as well. Seriously being attacked for my form by a couple posters repeatedly in how I ask questions - they can question everything I say, but the moment I come back at all, I'm accused of being passive aggressive and defensive. Just absolutely nuts.

I'm done for a while folks. I need to step back. This is doing me no good at all. I have been relentlessly attacked and there are them and us posters and it appears I'm just not equal enough for protection from HQ in the same way as some other posters.

Good luck to those of you carrying on.

I haven't seen one where child blamed: is that because I'm not tuned in to it...this is why I was asking)

Think about it. Who are they blaming for the problem when they call the child the "naughty" child, the "disruptive" child, the "talkative" child. Are they saying "the child that is not receiving enough support from the school, so they are struggling" in class? I've never seen a thread start out with that.

Well, I think I've proved my point. I've been accused of being passive aggressive, shouting discrimination (when I didn't even MENTION the word), told I'm putting words in other people's mouths when I clearly was not, and now being pulled up and lectured on how to phrase questions appropriately.

And yet... nobody has answered the question I initially asked. If none of the parents want the "disruptive child" to sit by their child, where exactly is the disruptive child supposed to be seated?

I've said absolutely nothing that should delete any of my posts. I've not made any personal attacks. I shouldn't see any deletions. We'll see.

Not trying to be goady.
Not ever been in the situation. Threads I have seen generally end up with parent being told to contact school. Of course it's a school issue (I haven't seen one where child blamed: is that because I'm not tuned in to it...this is why I was asking). Not unreasonable for parent to be concerned though?

There's something here I don't understand, can't ask without causing offence. Sorry. It was not my intention.

A child with a disability should and must have accommodation/provision made.

Yes, they should. Do they? Often not.

A parent moaning about behaviour in class would not necessarily be aware of any provision/disability because it's none of their business.
Why is it therefore disabilism?

They may not be aware of any provision or disability, but surely in this day and age, they should be aware of the possibility, rather than assuming the child is naughty. The disruptive children in these types of posts are almost exclusively referred to as naughty, loud, disruptive, brats, little shits, and so on. Righteous parents working themselves into a froth over the indignity of it all - these dreadful disruptive badly behaved children impacting on their quiet well behaved children. Until someone pops their head up over the parapet and points out that perhaps, just perhaps that child has SNs. And the righteous parents point their cannons at that errant parent that has reminded them that they're so busy judging the child's behaviour that they've not even considered this possibility. And they get angry - because nobody likes to be told they're potentially being disabilist, so they become defensive and nasty.

You think the relationship boards have a script? Seriously - the threads with disablism have a pretty secure script as well.

Why have we not had any comment from HQ despite the multitude of reports and questions on this thread?

so explain to me please. Not every disruptive child has a disability.
A child with a disability should and must have accommodation/provision made.

A parent moaning about behaviour in class would not necessarily be aware of any provision/disability because it's none of their business.
Why is it therefore disabilism?
I get that I'm irritating you but I am not trying to. Please. I got feminism in the end. I can do this too.

head - desk.

If you have an NT child you still want to protect them. Does the chair hurt their head less if it's thrown by a child with a disability or a little shit?

The school should have a duty of care to protect all the children. If a non-NT child disrupts the education or injures their classmates then the school has not made the necessary adjustments to give the disabled person (child) the same opportunity for learning that the others have, but the classmates are losing out as well.

I don't know where I'm going with this: just that it isn't necessarily about the disability, but the behaviour.