To think this may be disability discrimination (but not really be able to do anything about it)?

[PinkyU]

I’ve been looking for a dance class for my youngest two DD’s, one is neurotypical (NT - no disability) and one is neurodiverse (ND - has a developmental/cognitive disability/condition).

I contacted a dance school requesting a trial for both lo’s and briefly explained my youngest’s DD is autistic and has developmental delays, that I would stay within the building at all times, was able to help her in the lesson if allowed, was happy with a class for younger children to suit her needs better. Basically would bend over backwards in order to help lo participate in the lesson.

Received a message saying that they would take my older dd but could not accommodate my youngest due to her needs (which I did not specify), that she, the owner, has taught children with “a bit of autism”, but didn’t feel the class was “right” for my lo. She based this solely on me saying that my lo has additional needs, not on what those needs are.

Aibu to think that this is disability discrimination (under reasonable adjustments), but to know there’s very little point in fighting it because they just don’t want my little girl?

Imo the answer in general isn't to either expect small businesses to absorb the cost, or to make the club inaccessible to those on low incomes instead. Ideally there would be a centrally funded pot which could be applied to on an individual basis. But as they can't even manage that for education, I won't hold my breath for it happening with extra curriculars.

It isn't just cost that is a potential barrier to reasonable adjustment, it's not discriminatory if an adjustment changes the nature of the activity beyond what is reasonable. So eg a dance school that could only include a child by reducing the progression through the grades of the rest of the class wouldn't be discriminatory if it chose not to change its business model.

Or, conflicting interests, eg the adjustments necessary to meet another dc's needs.

However nobody is ever going to know whether reasonable adjustments can be made without open, honest conversations, rather than the unfortunately common discriminatory response from the start.

That's only a 'logical' train of thought if you have prejudicial attitudes to people with disability Becles.

OP doesn't want to rain destruction down on the teacher - she says in her thread title that she knows that she can't do anything about this discrimination.

Trainspotting no dance school that was based on working through grades would be expected to change its whole business model and curriculum to suit one child. That child could just not do the grades for example. Given the information that OP supplied, it's unlikely she approached a feeder school for the Royal Ballet.

I do agree that common discriminatory responses, like inferring a previous negative experience based on the name of a disability or persisting in talking about 'outbursts' when they're completely irrelevant to OP's dd is a key barrier.

Well yes, of course a dc could just not do the grades, although as the class would be geared towards learning the curriculum for it I can imagine situations where the child could be present in the room, but still not really fully included. But I was referring to situations where the adjustments would prevent other dc progressing through in the usual way. Which I agree doesn't sound applicable in ops situation, a school like dcs that still had average weekly dancers like mine alongside serious peers at that age wouldn't have any justifiable reason not to discuss any adjustments/ possible conflicting interests rather than simply saying no. But the thread had moved on to general discussion about what may or may not be reasonable adjustments, which is what I was responding to.

And yes, I agree people that judge everyone with the same dx based on a previous negative experience or stereotype are a major barrier to inclusion. I just don't agree that if nobody mentions it happens the problem will cease to exist.

"I just don't agree that if nobody mentions it happens the problem will cease to exist."

I haven't said this. On the contrary, I think it's important that disablist attitudes and discrimination are named for what they are.

If there is only one teacher then there is a limit to the amount of extra support that can be given, no matter how much one would want to be inclusive.

Asking a child who needs extra support to bring a carer is not unreasonable, it really isn't.

"she says in her thread title that she knows that she can't do anything about this discrimination."
I dont have a thread title because I'm not the op? I dont think I've said this anywhere? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

"I just don't agree that if nobody mentions it happens the problem will cease to exist."

"I haven't said this. On the contrary, I think it's important that disablist attitudes and discrimination are named for what they are."

I think she was referring to meltdowns here?

"Tabbywell... it was pretty offensive for your first posts to say that the teacher had probably had a bad experience with a child with autism before, that someone you know had a child with autism try to strangle then posting ad infinitum about 'outbursts'."

"No, meltdowns aren't a 'strong possibility for many autistic people'. They aren't for OP's dd for example."

It's not offensive to mention something that people have agreed is a factual possibility? I'm confused as to why on Mumsnet multiple parents talk regularly about their childs meltdowns, but if someone else mentions it's a possibility, that's offensive.

Tabby I wrote "OP doesn't want to rain destruction down on the teacher - she says in her thread title that she knows that she can't do anything about this discrimination."

I was clearly talking about the OP.

I'm not sure that Trainspotting was referring to meltdowns, but I'm sure that she'll clarify wheatshe meant when she get a chance.

I can't explain why your persistent refrain about outbursts/meltdowns are offensive any more clearly than I did yesterday on a post at 12.20. If you can't understand my pov and that of CrohnicallyEarly and other posters, then I despair quite frankly.

Not everywhere is like this- my girls are at a dance school which on some levels can be very competitive- lots of girls (and it is pretty much all girls!!) go on to be be professional dancers, they do exams from 4+ and huge shows from 2+. A lot of pupils have won scholarships to have their fees paid from the exam board, and I think they do have at least one alumnus who is in the Royal Ballet.

However, there is a child in their nursery class with additional support needs- one of their older students was working with her one-on-one in the class to ensure she could join in and get something out of it. I don't know how long she'll continue as I doubt it would be as much fun for her to progress through the classes while not being able to physically keep up with her peers, but I was really pleased to see that the dance school is prepared to practice its message in terms of being fun and inclusive despite also being quite a serious dance school.

These places do exist- if you can bear to, keep looking around.

"can't explain why your persistent refrain about outbursts/meltdowns are offensive any more clearly than I did yesterday on a post at 12.20. If you can't understand my pov and that ofCrohnicallyEarlyand other posters, then I despair quite frankly."

Surely when many parents on here talk about meltdowns, it's not then offensive if someone else does? It just doesnt make sense. Is it exclusively for parents of autistic children to talk about and no one else is allowed? We've already established that it's a factually correct thing and in addition to parents talking about it at length, it's all over the internet. Yet if I mention it as a possibility, its offensive? Slightly confusing. That's like saying a diabetic person may get hypo and this being offensive?! Millions dont, but many do. Its disingenuous to admit /agree that meltdowns do happen and then get all offended if someone puts the two together.

Tabby YOU are the person who brought outbursts and meltdowns into the discussion.

Not OP. Not the dance teacher. You.

And that's what so offensive.

As I said yesterday, I can google and find sites/papers about 'autism and genius'. That doesn't mean that all people with autism are geniuses nor does it mean that it's appropriate to bring the possibility of genius-ness into every discussion about autism.

"However, there is a child in their nursery class with additional support needs- one of their older students was working with her one-on-one in the class to ensure she could join in and get something out of it." - from Canyousewcushions post.

This is what inclusion looks like. Not finding reasons why adjustments can't be made, or assuming that they'll be expensive and disruptive to others, but having a positive attitude and recognising that all parties will benefit from this arrangement.

It might be that without support in a large class, with loud music and bright lights, this little girl wouldn't be able to cope. She may even have a meltdown. This wouldn't be because of her additional needs, but because the physical and social environment weren't meeting her needs. It's these things that are disabling her and they are what can be adjusted, often very easily.

becles

autism is a huge spectrum. just because you once had a child with ASD in the class, you cannot possibly draw any conclusions about another child/person with ASD.

"TabbyYOU are the person who brought outbursts and meltdowns into the discussion.Not OP. Not the dance teacher. You.And that's what so offensive."

Yes I did bring it into the conversation, of course I did. But what makes that offensive if it's an agreed possibility with autism.

'm trying as best as I can, as simply as possible to explain why your posts are offensiveTabby>
I also think inclusion is brilliant and should be done, that isn't what I've said. Ive said it is a reasonable assumption that the teacher doesnt want the child in her class because she mentions she'd had another child in her class with autism before. In order to stop discrimination you have to get to the crux of why it happens, and I think this is what potentially happened. That's not being offensive. That's not even saying that's ok, that's stating what I think might be facts.

"As I said yesterday, I can google and find sites/papers about 'autism and genius'. That doesn't mean that all people with autism are geniuses nor does it mean that it's appropriate to bring the possibility of genius-ness into every discussion about autism."
Of course it doesnt, I understand the possibility of genius ness is a lot lot rarer than the possibility of meltdowns, which I understand is much more common? I understand genius-ness is much more common in the higher functioning level of autism?
I do know there is a massive spectrum and many many people with autism will not have meltdowns, but as many do, and it is recorded and discussed a lot on Mumsnet and on the internet, I dont think its offensive to say that this teacher may have been aware of this and may have had her judgement clouded by a previous pupil. People are nervous about the unknown, and may base their previous experience on future ones. Nowhere have I said this is right or acceptable. I do think she should have asked more questions and got more information, but she didnt.

As someone with Aspergers I find some of the comments about meltdowns on this thread disgusting, offensive and really very ignorant!
I have a degree and a masters. I work for the nhs in a medical profession. I may not be what people typically think of when they think 'autistic'. But that is due to lack of education on the subject, presumption and media representation.
I have never in my life had a meltdown, disrupted a class or attacked anyone. There is a vast spectrum of autistic disorders and threads like this really show how ignorant the country is on educating people about it. It's very sad really.

I think that for extra curricular activities, then they do not legally have to make the same adjustments as a school does for example. I think it would be worth asking if it would be possible for her to trial it before giving a blanket no.
It is heartbreaking. I know one of my children was told they couldnt accomodate him at one of his clubs, and my daughter got kicked out of a ballet class, because their disabilities made it difficult to manage the rest of the class.
It is a horrible feeling, but on the other hand, I likened it to signing a child in a wheelchair up to a football club and the being cross with the football club that they couldnt play.
Some clubs are just shit and tbh, life is just full of discrimination for autistic and disabled kids and its mainly just one rejection after another.
You can probably fight it to some extent, but it depends if you have the energy

I wasn't thinking of meltdowns particularly, the problem I was referring to is discriminating based on a past experience or stereotype.

Amongst the ignorant the stereotype of autism tends to be either violent meltdowns or rainman. So an ignorant person with one prior experience of a dc with asd in this scenario is likely to be basing their assumptions about all dc with asd on that one experience. And it's reasonable for anyone to come to the conclusion it was meltdowns, rather than the rain man stereotype in a dance class.

The same could be said of adhd, the ignorant stereotype is naughty boy syndrome or scatterbrained.

The problem is that ignorant people assume everyone with sn shares a homogeneous personality and behaviour, rather than being individuals that may or may not share some traits. Whereas few people assume nt people with some traits in common all share the same personality and behaviour. Nt people are mostly judged as individuals.

And of course, even if dc do exhibit a similar difficult behaviour, the correct thing to do is discuss the individual triggers, and whether it's practical to avoid them in a particular scenario for that individual.

If little Alfie couldn't cope with any change in routine, and had a violent meltdown every time someone wore a different colour coat to class, never mind a new pupil joining, it doesn't mean little Annie will even have meltdowns, let alone with the same triggers. If Alfie happened to be blonde & a brat, nobody would assume Annie was going to be a brat simply because she's blonde too.

That's what I see as one of the major problems to inclusion, ignorance and assuming we are all their stereotype.

dd was welcomed into ballet (we didn't have her diagnosis then) age 3, it was fairly obvious (dyspraxia as well as asd) that this was difficult -she was a brownie & girl guide (at that time they thought she had epilepsy - its a more common misdiagnosis -& add) they were aware she had difficulties - than in her teens we found a local inclusive theatre group (she had her diagnosis of Aspergers by then) The theatre group were fantastic there were other dc with physical & LD & dc from complex (!) backgrounds - they had all sorts of ways of not only supporting their mixed ability community but also encouraging them & making sure they all fully took part & were casted in plays. It was & still is apparently! a wonderful organisation. Check your local sports centre & see if they have gymnastics or other activities - do not text them - ring them or visit them preferably with your dd & be precise about how exactly her asd affects her & emphasize that it affects everybody differently "as I am sure you realize" (tongue in cheek!)

Very well said trainspottingwelsh. Couldnt agree more .

I am an OT, mum and Brownie Leader. She hasn't met your daughter she is presuming that all children with additional needs have the same needs. I can lookat a child on paper and jnow that how they present will be different. I have two children with ASD and one with Global Developmental Delay in Brownies none of them cause me any more work than any of the other children. They are all busy bees. It is discriminatory behaviour she has prejudged your daughter before meeting her. Horrible woman.