Disablism

Well, I've clearly stepped into it in the other thread. I'm apparently passive aggressive and shouting discrimination. Surprise, surprise.

Meh.

Candy :o
I don't know how 'I'm not talking about your child, I'm talking about someone elses' is ever an excuse or reason either!

It isn't right, but it is what happens.

And there it is. You see? It's not right. But people just sleepwalk around it. It's what happens so just deal with it, right?

This is why we need change. This is why we get frustrated.

And the assumptions begin. I take breaks from even touching any of those kind of threads for months at a time, as I get so frustrated at the obvious disabilism involved, but stupidly, I step back into the fray here and there, and nothing really changes. Ever.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all!!! Really no.
What I'm saying is that most parents would advocate any position which they feel advantages their own child. Some parents will feel that the book learning is the most important thing and will push other children aside to get what they perceive to the 'the best' for their own children. It isn't right, but it is what happens.
My position, for what it's worth, is that at Primary level it is far more important to learn life lessons about different people and getting different experience, so I'd advocate a comprehensive approach. I've never really had to test this though: If there was a child who was repeatedly hurting my child I like to think that I'd be able to calmly ask what was being done to protect my child while not asking what was being done to support the other child as it is none of my business, but by the time I was wound up enough to go in to school I can't guarantee my coherency.

I've started a thread in chat entitled Please can anyone explain?
I want to know why I can see something that others insist isn't there and what mistakes I am making. I'm entitled to ask. After all MN is for advice and support.

And you think the thought process that says "well, if we lump all the disruptive children together that's okay, even though it means they learn less than the rest of the children, as long as they're not bothering our normal children" is okay then?

I am so glad we home educate now and don't have to deal with this rubbish on a daily basis.

I think in a school debate of that type any parent (except the most laid back in the world) would advocate the position which would most benefit their child: if the parent perceives that academic attainment is pivotal and their child is up to it they will advocate removal of more difficult characters, a more structured educational approach etc. If their child is a bit of a dreamer and benefits form a varied group dynamic where they aren't pushed too hard but encouraged to engage then that's what they will go for. if their child is one of the children branded 'difficult' they will presumably fight to stop their child being put into a cohort where evidence shows they will progress more slowly.

Isn't that the same argument used for all selective education though Ivy?
Putting the academic children into Grammar means that they become more academic.
Putting the studious children into one class means they become more studious
Putting the 'disruptive children' into one class means they become more disruptive/ed.
Is it disablist or just conservatism (small c) ?

The ideas put forward almost unanimously seem to be "well, it's not perfect, but when it comes down to it, I can't have my child's learning affected by it" even to the point of admitting that putting all the "disruptive children" together means they will learn far less than the other children, but basically what ya gonna do?

So so demoralising.

And then ask if they have any other suggestions that might be helpful.

Re the quiet box, I would want the leader to say "we have this available, as it is helpful for some of the other children. If you think this might be helpful for your child, I will happily make sure it's available to your child as well."

Then you're not making assumptions that it's a "one size fits all" but are offering it as a possible aid, which the parent can then either say "yes, that might be helpful" or "no that wouldn't help my child."

Begin education with me please.
I suspect my position is not acceptable: though it seems very logical to me. I promise that I am not trying to be goady. My DD(12) is under assessment for aspergers/high functioning ASD and I suspect that were the same diagnostic criteria used when I was a child I'd be on the spectrum...as it is I'm just a scientist with low emotional intelligence.
Right: my position (which is based on what I was taught in the 80s I guess). People with a disability are firstly people and secondly a person with a disability. It is morally and legally appropriate that modifications are provided to (for want of a abetter word) counteract the disability as much as possible to allow the person to do whatever they would choose to do if they did not have a disability, but people should all be treated equally beyond that.
Thus, on the thread with the Dad with the child with a disability: my expectation would be that the employer would provide shorter hours or flexible working as necessary, the workmate would cut some slack if they were friends, but the Father himself should still do good quality work for the time that he is in the office/fulfil whatever contract has been agreed with management and workmates should not be disadvantaged. Is this disablist?
Or: at a music festival: 3 toilet cubicles in a portacabin, one accessible cabin standing alone. 20 people queueing. My position would be that everyone without a disability queues together but the accessible cubicle still gets used if it's available when someone gets to the front. If someone who specifically needs the accessible cubicle comes along they go straight up to it rather than joining the combined queue. Is this disablist?
ASD generally seems to be so different between people it's really difficult to make accommodation without asking for lots of information on the individual up-front. Is making presumption based on generalities in the absence of individual knowledge disablist? For example: I run a Brownie unit and we have had girls with ASD in the group. Each one is different but based on our experience there are a couple of things which all have had in common: if I tell a new parent that we have a quiet box in the kitchen away from the group or that we provide a coloured card for the girl to show to their nominated leader when they want to withdraw rather than having to put their hand up or make a scene, rather than just asking what they want initially...is this disablist ?
I would like to be a useful advocate. My DH used to be a care worker for young adults with a genetic disorder linked to a variety of traits/behaviours and disabilities. Overtly disabled language is banned in our house. I'm not convinced we're as informed as we should be.

I will de-activate now. how long does it take?

Justin's will be aware.

PresidentOliviaMumsnet is following us.

That thread alone is discriminating between children.

Why are the children disruptive?

Let's segregate children.

MN won't see a problem with it. The op is entitled to ask a discriminatory question.

If we object we are looking for a fight cos we enjoy fights. It's how we get our kicks. What trouble makers we are.

Can you imagine e the impact if MN immediately deleted and said come on now, that's not cricket.

People would stop and think.

Smart. It tell me all I need to know. And that, without being emotionally blackmailing, makes me really sad and upset.

Yes, I get what you mean Maddy .

I can't believe MMHQ haven't commented either, yet have obviously had time to delete comments. Nice message, hmm?

i didn't say nice, i said polite ;)

It is quite possible to tell someone that they are an epid shitweasel and to go fuck themselves without calling a cunt a cunt ;)

I never screamed. I never threw abuse. I never name called.

I was deleted. I was miscalled and mocked. I was talked down down in a pejorative way. I was threatened with suspension.

And it is this time of the day. And HQ have been on this thread deleting my comment and yet they have no said a peep. Not one.

Bishop, you're right. Being nice changes nothing in these situations.

Hits in the street conjures up this lovely image of you with a concealed weapon taking on the world.