Richard Tice comments re autism and ear defenders

[Overthemhills]

I’m so tired of the anti-disability rhetoric everywhere on various sites and from various politicians. This one - Tice calling the sight of children wearing ear defenders in school “insane” is about the most stupid and cruel barrel-scraping comments a politician has come out with for a very long time.
My child is disabled but undiagnosed and does not use ear defenders so I have little on the way of skin in the game, or this particular game, but just how low do some people want to go to make the lives of people struggling with disability worse - on top of the cost of living and NHS issues.
I’m starting to think I will need to avoid every news item and social media platform until the next general election at this rate.

@Portlypig I can't reply to a specific comment because every time you type you say something else that's prejudiced, ill-informed and just downright false. But a few disjointed thoughts on your seemingly endless opinions about SEN provision for disabled children...

Of course decent people are worried about funding provision for disabled people, because we want to ensure everyone has what they need and that it's sustainable for the future. "Worry" that's expressed purely through questioning accommodations for disabled children, questioning the validity of diagnoses, advocating for less support for disabled people based on cost, peddling the idea that disabled people are a burden that taxpayers are resentful of etc is not worry at all. It is ableism. And it's very obvious to anyone with a scrap of social conscience. I would bet my house on the fact that you have never questioned the amount of money the UK spends on diabetes medication, or whether we are diagnosing too many people with cancer nowadays. People like you reserve these questions purely for children with SEND, and that's ableism.

Children didn't have ear defenders in school in the 90s because the whole world was a different place. Disabled kids were often not in the classroom at all. Where would parents have shared ideas about tools and accomodations pre-internet? Where would parents even have bought ear defenders for a 5 year old?

The use of ear defenders is not a predictor of long term outcomes for disabled children. It is notoriously extremely difficult to predict outcomes in adulthood for children with ASD, as any qualified expert will tell you, even with huge amounts of data available. The idea that you, who clearly has no professional or educational background in this arena, think you can judge long term outcomes based on ear defenders is laughable.

Whilst an autistic 40 year old with a job and a marriage has very different challenges and outlook to my non-verbal child, don't fall into the trap of believing (or spreading the false narrative) that so-called "high functioning ASD" cannot need large amounts of support in certain areas. One autistic advocate I follow on Instagram tours the world speaking at events and has several degrees, but cannot button their own shirts and requires assistance with dressing and basic care.

The fact that you recognise that Reform are setting disabled children up as the scapegoat to make public service service cuts, and you STILL choose to spread misinformation to help their cause is abhorrent. Shame on you.

There's no point in paying attention to the half-thought out ramblings of Mr Tice.
I also can't get het up about ear defenders. It's no different to me wearing a hearing aid to "turn the world up". Autistic people are trying to turn it down.

I do think there's an issue with people riding on the coattails of an expanded Autistic/ADHD spectrum by saying "oh he's disabled" to pass off poor behaviour as dysregulation. That's what gives it such a bad rep.

At the same time, school budgets have shrunk, there's less dedicated special needs provision and more families under stress than ever before. The SEN system is nuts - parents have to fight for every scrap of help because the local authorities are bankrupt which creates more expense via court costs and shuttling kids around the country because there's no provision nearby.

It would be more cost-effective to accept we have a lot of autistic kids and act accordingly. Put more money into support hubs at local schools for those that require low-level support and agree a dedicated strategy (funded by central government) to build specialist schools throughout the country for the high-needs end. We'd end up with a lot more educated and productive adults, fewer burned-out teachers, fewer mental health problems and happier classrooms.

This is exactly my understanding of the spectrum too. Some of our sons blocks on that pie chart are bigger than others, and really conveniently/confusingly, sometimes they change size and severity.

Yes it ends up being a case of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't'. May as well do then, and simply pay no attention to those who're blinkered by their own beliefs regardless. Luckily I rarely encounter them.

Having the autism diagnosis (NHS fwiw) has made life just a tad bit easier socially for me, and that 1% ease is better than none, especially when you struggle with severe generalised anxiety disorder (nhs diagnosed) as well. It's given me more confidence to post online, for one. It took me years to be able to do so on chat forums confidently without breaking into panic attacks.

So yeah, those who don't believe me anyway aren't my problem or priority. The support and understanding of some people make it all worth it.

I do think there's an issue with people riding on the coattails of an expanded Autistic/ADHD spectrum by saying "oh he's disabled" to pass off poor behaviour as dysregulation. That's what gives it such a bad rep.

Interesting. Why do you think this? Where are you seeing it?

I think there is a lot to unpick in these reports on outcomes.

It is very important to make sure we are spending money on the right things, and look to see if we can reduce spending and even improve outcomes. It is fair to say the current system is broken and is driving up costs and some interventions have little evidence.

There is a big scandal about private providers who have LAs over a barrel.

Early support is hard to get and could prevent bigger costs doen the line.

there is also inflation, and an increase in overall student numbers gone through So it was always going to cost a bit more.

I also think here is a huge issue with mainstream funding, that has pushed more people into needing sen support. So being on sen support wouldn't change outcomes, it was just before the outcome was achieved out of this section of funding, now its achieved from this set of funds.

They focus on education outcomes, but much spend is on things to support other outcomes, which concerns me. Independence skills, emotional regulation, mobility etc are all outcomes under ehcps and make life changing impacts and ehcps literally include progress on these outcomes. So not including how well did ehcps achieve thier outcomes, rather than just general secondary measurs misses the pointm

But none of this impacts on cheap ear defenders that do seem to improve focus so it feels like exactly the sort of thing we want to see.

Yes but that is partly because we have more disabled people due to medical advances. Children who would not have survived before and certainly wouldn't be able to go to school, let alone access mainstream education, now do so they need to be supported while they are.

The fact remains it, like many many other things, is unaffordable and in conjunction with other areas is leading us to financial ruin. We can’t escape this fact. I understand it’s personal and upsetting, but then other areas that are personal and upsetting to me are heading the same way - the spending just goes up and up with no sign of stopping and more people in ‘need’ every year. What do we do?

@Portlypig which are the areas that are personal and upsetting to you?

I have no issue with looking at making SEND services efficient and cost effective. You don’t do that by refusing to diagnose, to remove reasonable adjustments, to stigmatise children with obvious signs of difficulties like wearing ear defenders. You don’t do it by making deliberately inflammatory headline grabbing sound bites. You don’t do it by just cutting funding and shrugging.

All really fair points.
Assessments of the influence of Sure Start showed that early intervention saved money in the longer term.
Also the council reports make no reference to the impact of austerity on education & health in the preceding period. In fairness the report wasn’t designed as a full review. But neither does it appear to take into account covid measures.

So what are you suggesting as a solution exactly? "Reduce the amount spent and spend it in a way that actually meets peoples needs" you say. What would you cut and why? How would you spend a lower sum better in a way that met needs?

I feel it's very easy to say things like "we can't go on like spending this amount of money like this" when there is no realistic idea of what reform is required (or what it would cost) and meanwhile the rhetoric is just demonising groups that are already disadvantaged - all it says is "I don't think you're worth it".

I think we should stop spending money on DLA and re channel it into large, practical day care centres for children who are unlikely to significantly progress. So they can do enjoyable activities day to day, respite can be provided, and for the most profound cases there is continuity of care.

What you could do is drop the arrogance, the ableism and the peddling of lies and listen. The faux hand-wringing and tilty head "but what do we do?" is transparent. If you want a solution, you must first understand the problem. And it's clear you have no desire to do so.

Would you rather those children had no education and spent the rest of their lives on benefits? Which would cost far more

In cases like this, I don’t think the placement should’ve been granted, no.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v12dwddmwo.amp

Absolutely clueless.

Financial ruin comes from people with lots hanging onto it and not using it for the betterment of us all

not from people at the bottom grasping for scraps

yes if we accept everyone and treat them all with respect there will be less money for the very top

but what is wrong with that exactly ?

That wouldn't be the case for the majority

The judge said this is now very very common.

Is this honestly your grasp of government, benefits, public spending etc? "Keeping money back"? Do you think this is how finances work at central government level? That we each have a little pot of savings?

289k isn’t scraps, it’s a life changing amount of money for most.

Well, using it to pay off our debt so we can front load that and avoid doing it later - I think you know what I mean.

The amounts don’t really matter

what matters is that if everyone shared nicely we can all live fulfilling lives and all contribute to our best

or if people get selfish than many people suffer

There were probably kids who put their fingers in their ears a lot. And kids who had a meltdown due to noise and were punished for being naughty. And kids who were seen as developmentally 'subnormal' and kept separate from other kids or home schooled because school couldn't cope with them.

In 1995 there weren't mobile phones or isofix car seats either. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have been useful if they had existed.