"Forcing" children to include others

[DorothyL]

If your primary age child was told they had to commit to one day a week choosing to do an activity that makes it possible for a physically disabled child to join in, would you think this is fair enough or that your child shouldn't be forced to play with another child?

Could you suggest that they watch something like Wonder in class which has lots of messages about inclusiveness. Then maybe a discussion about it. I think some clubs and other organised summer games would be good. I would also look into other sports that he can do well so he can say that although he isn't great at football he can swim/ climb etc well. Mine find non team games better because they are challenging themselves not comparing themselves to others.

In my experience, it's totally normal for all kids to get yelled out for getting it wrong in football hence football bans/football on a rota so an adult can supervise is commonplace. Does he have a thick skin when he can overlook "that kid" who thinks he's playing in the World Cup Final and loses their shit at the drop of a hat? My NT sons are no good at football but quickly learned how to fly under the radar and pretend that they were making a contribution to the team. They preferred the no football days much more.

Catch/piggy in the middle is appealing to a lot of kids. I remember boys bringing tennis balls to school and lobbing them to each other in the playground.

Is there nobody in the playground playing tag? My experience is that this is very popular with both sexes.

The letter was filled with pleading and apologies for upsetting them, even though he had no idea what he'd done wrong

I’m a hard faced cow but even I had tears in my eyes reading that. He sounds like my eldest, just utterly confused and unsure of why nobody wants to include him. It breaks my heart. Thankfully he’s got friends who are autistic too and they’ve got a wee group going together. But mainstream kids? No chance.

Other parents very much ime do the head tilt "aw bless him" thing but otherwise don't want to know.
Ds has never been invited to another child's house, not once

SoddingUnicorns

But this is what I am saying. Unless the OP's DS is the only child who experiences exclusion because of a special need (and I can't imagine she has any objective way of knowing that) she would have to anticipate that every parent whose child experiences exclusion would expect and get the same arrangements. While I understand how difficult exclusion must be for her DS, I cannot see that setting a precedent of dictating how children spend their playtime is reasonable, when it is certainly not guaranteed to be a special case.

OP, I don't think you're expecting too much at all.

My DS (almost 19 now) excelled academically in most subjects, and wanted to abide by the rules so much he was really well behaved and did whatever was expected of him in the classroom (He has Apsergers). At lunchtime, no one played with him. It was like he was the invisible child.

He didn't have a statement, and neither primary or secondary did anything to encourage him to play with his peers, or his peers to include him.

He has anxiety and depression now, and struggles socially to the extent that when he's at college he's texting me in his breaks to ask how he should respond in general conversations.

Slightly different circumstances to your DS I know, but I would have loved it if at primary, there was more in place to include him socially, because life isn't all about how many GCSE's/A Levels/Degrees you get, it's also about growing up, friendships, relationships, having your heart broken, sharing secrets, having good and bad friendships and learning from them. It makes me so, so sad that so far my DS hasn't had any of that, because he is just the invisible kid that people don't even realise is there.

He goes to a LGBT youthclub which has helped, and I have friends whose kids he likes and gets on with, but while they're all going out to KoKo now til 3 in the morning, he's sitting in with me, and we get on so well, but I know it's not the same as being with his peers.

Sorry this is long. I hope your DS starts to be included, and soon.

"This game isn't for you".

Not for another child to say.

Okay for your child to decide based on the fact that all possible adjustments, considerations or general inclusions are made where possible, but not something to be told by others, even someone with the exact same condition or situation he may be in. Because there's always a first person ever to smash it out the field and that could be him.

I don't know why other than - can't be bothered

I am so hopeful that secondary will be bettet, while terrified it will be just as bad or worse.

The story about the letter has me in bits

For what it's worth I guarantee the girls have been told by the boys the game is not for them either...there's a reason they are all in the gym 🤬

He ought to join forces with them 😎

See straight away there's a negative spin on it 'had to commit' to one day a week. If it was put in a positive way, so that the activities were totally pitched as fun activities for all, then yes it's a bloody brilliant idea.

There are no other games ds wants to join in with ... He sees children having a great time playing active games and wants to be part of that

I thought YANBU until I read this. It sounds like there are other games your DS could play if he wanted to be included and have friends. But he doesn't want to play those games with those children, so he is in effect ostracising himself by not being willing to do the activities that are accessible to him.

I doubt the school will do much if he's leaving in six weeks. Perhaps the best approach would be to talk to the secondary school now so that arrangements can be made to ensure he's included from September going forward.

But this is what I am saying. Unless the OP's DS is the only child who experiences exclusion because of a special need (and I can't imagine she has any objective way of knowing that) she would have to anticipate that every parent whose child experiences exclusion would expect and get the same arrangements. While I understand how difficult exclusion must be for her DS, I cannot see that setting a precedent of dictating how children spend their playtime is reasonable, when it is certainly not guaranteed to be a special case

Disabilities are covered under “reasonable adjustments”, by law. Your inability to understand or even include the disability is why I said what I said. Legally, reasonable adjustments have to be made. And they aren’t being.

I have no issue with setting a precedent of dictating how children spend their playtime if it's to ensure the inclusion of all children.

Onefoot that is heartbreaking, I'm pleased things have improved for your nephew somewhat

@Murane so ds has to do what he doesn't want to because of his limitations

While everyone else is allowed to do what they want.

Who ever said he couldn’t play needs to be told they had no right to do that.

But you can’t force children to play with him. Like you can’t force children to play with other ablebodied kids.

You have been given options by other posters but you don’t seem to be acknowledging them in favour of having children forced to play with him.

My dd gets pushed out all the time at school and regularly walks around with the play ground assistant. I couldn’t go in school and insist they all play one game a week with her.

There is other solutions op

While everyone else is allowed to do what they want

It’s not their fault that they haven’t got the issues he has though. Maybe he is very demanding and that’s why his friend is giving him a swerve. Kids don’t go to school to be forced in to bring careers. It’s only when true friendship happens children are more inclined to do that

In some ways secondary is worse in that there are likely to be boys who are even better than football- I had a discussion with dd that as she was in the B team for netball in a class with 15 girls, going to a school with 150 girls in her year group meant that she might not be picked for netball team. Your son might feel more excluded from football games.

On the other hand it is much better as there are loads of lunchtime clubs which she has thrown herself into, although she says lots of them just sit around playing on phones. Encourage him to go to as many clubs as possible and find his tribe.

@Whattheactualfuckmate take off the “mate” and that’s my response to your comment. You’re victim blaming and advocating a disabled child being shunned because he can’t be like NT kids? Fuck the fuck right off with that shite.

DorothyL

But everyone wouldn't be allowed to do what they wanted if this solution was adopted.

Are you really suggesting a whole class of kids is rounded up and forced to play tag weekly because your DS wants to play that specific game?

It goes too far for me, sorry.

I just saw your other post, that your child had never been invited to another child's house. That's really sad, and it suggests that the school are doing bugger all to make the children all feel equal. My sons both have friends who have physical disabilities and they're aware of them (they might play playstation rather than football for instance with one) but they both genuinely get along and have lots in common with all three of the friends in question, not because they've been told to get along. It might be worth having a word with the school to see what they are doing to make sure ALL the children are playing together and hopefully that will extend into their friendships outside school.

MimpiDreams

Well, I do. I wouldn't be happy if my child who didn't like either football or tag were forced to play tag. It's their break time too - they should be able to spend it as they see fit.

It’s not their fault that they haven’t got the issues he has though.

Jesus fucking Christ!!!

It's not HIS FAULT either. Why the fuck would anyone with a modicum of decency object to asking children to be more inclusive with another child?

Fuck sake. The level of dickishness on here astounds me sometimes.

SoddingUnicorns

The key word is reasonable. This isn't reasonable.