AIBU to say that not everything can be inclusive all the time?

[Summeriscumin]

A former student has asked for advice and I'm a bit stumped.

She has been running a drama club for 11 - 16 year olds in the village hall. The aim is an introduction to various theatre and circus skills.

These include vocal skills, breathing exercises, trust exercises, mime, juggling, acro, improvisation, script reading aloud, devising scenes and basic contemporary dance skills. It's been going very well and the subs are paying for the hall hire, so she isn't out of pocket.

But she's afraid she's going to have to give it up. A mum came along her son, a wheelchair user, asking to join and he was welcomed. My friend (C) explained what the sessions entailed and said there may be some that her son may not be able to participate in. Specifically she meant the energetic dance stuff and some circus skills and there was an issue with some trust exercises. - DCs have their eyes closed and move around and the wheelchair could prove dangerous.

The lad came for a couple of weeks and seemed to really enjoy it and C tried to make it as inclusive as possible without depriving the others of their skills training. They work in small groups so she always made sure there was a group he could work with.

However, this week the mother has said that her son must be included in everything or it's discrimination and that she should stop the exercises that he cannot participate in.

C says she may as well just give it up as that's just not fair on the others.

AIBU in thinking this mother is BU? I feel so sorry for C who has done her best to include the lad.

We know what is possible with the right funding. And the lad is included in many movement pieces - did you not see that?

But to suggest that they only do exercises the lad can do is just daft. Did you read and understand what the exercise is about? It's done universally, I'm not sure why you think it shouldn't be.

The class isn't selective and nor should it be. C tries to have something for everyone but NOT everything for one person. I'm not sure how you think that's OK. Most reasonable people don't, as illustrated by the vast majority here.

I think some people are missing the point that reasonable adjustments are intended to let the disabled person, if at all possible, participate in an activity which able-bodied persons can participate in without those adjustments, NOT to demand the fundamental nature of the activity itself is changed to one which the disabled person can participate in.

Sometimes it’s clear that no level of reasonable adjustment could ever enable participation in the given activity, and sometimes participation is best met by parallel provision, i.e. wheelchair or sitting versions of a sport, which not every single club can Accommodate. But it’s never a reasonable adjustment to expect the actual activity to fundamentally change to a different activity.

Dance/drama etc is an interesting one, as can encompass many styles and activities - but it would be interesting to hear the replies if the class was, for example, a formal ballet class with grades and tests - would people still say a reasonable adjustment would involve not allowing non-disabled participants to participate in activities a disabled classmate wouldn’t be able to do, even if this meant no-one could progress through the grades/levels?

I used to help run a theatre group which was for 14 - 19 year olds.

We had a few (declared) autistic people audition over the years and without exception it was a disaster when we tried to cast them. We never said autistic people couldn’t audition - I’m sure there were autistic people at points who were part of the group - but the ones who could manage were obviously affected differently.

We didn’t have the expertise, and it was really hard on all parties involved.

There are inclusive groups which cater for a variety of needs, and various disabilities which we could’ve accommodated and did (blind performers, some learning difficulties, some physical disabilities).

An adjustment is not reasonable if it materially changes an entire offering.

The mother is being ridiculous.
The main objective is the development of certain skills and while inclusivity is important, that isn’t the main focus here.
If it were the main focus, then the activities would prioritise this in all aspects.

It’s like advertising a cooking and baking class where basic cooking and baking skills were taught and then someone with an allergy or celiac disease comes along and says that the class can only go ahead if everything is gluten and allergy free.

Why wouldn’t she be reluctant if the thought that stuff important to the subject? You are very cavalier about just cut those out when that would make the class substantially different and lacking for many, who are actually interested in this area not a restricted version of this area.

A gifted teacher/choreographer would ensure that it was still great and not that noticeable. Anyway, those videos I posted show that it is possible for wheelchair users to do the same movements as those who don’t use wheelchairs.

I am pretty sure the boy’s mother isn’t asking the teacher to have her son do the impossible.

Bollocks are they doing the same movements 🤨 You've talked yourself right out of the realm of reality, Joan.

You seem ever so determined to ignore the fact that all the helpfully inspiring examples shared by you and others come from SPECIALIST troupes whose FOCUS is on the disabled dancers. This means you want C to completely reinvent her class - while becoming a specialist, trained in the necessary modalities and safety considerations, in dance for people with disabilities.

Are you the kid's mother? You're just as blinkered!

Here's a still from one of those videos. If I were C, I would definitely not be teaching a child in a wheelchair to rock his chair from side to side while doing arm movements, to pirouette on one wheel or to tip himself over in his chair. That would be insane, dangerous, a damages claim waiting to happen, and would instantly get rid of the existing class. You're asking too much.

There are all sorts of SPECIALIST trainings for disabled people - I happen to like wheelchair skate, which is bloody impressive and uses customised equipment plus, of course, specialised techniques. The insurance for that must be extortionate. Some people of lesser means have Macgyvered their normal chairs by affixing skateboards/skate wheels: they do that at their own risk, and they can't rock up at their local skate park to use the ramps because they are not insured.

Be realistic. You don't further your campaign by demanding the unreasonable.

I don’t have a campaign. The language you use shows that you might though. Unable to have a discussion. The ableism on this thread is shocking and hateful. You don’t have to swear at or insult me to make your point.

props to that mother for advocating for her son in the face of such vitriol. I am not sure that I could.

And yet op keeps insisting the leader is teaching the kids “skills” that they need as dancers. So which is it? a fun class or rigorous specialist professional training?

Yanbu and to be honest i think its ok for your friend to say she'll offer adapted or alternative activities where possible, but that not every activity can be adapted without defeating the point of the class, which is for the children to learn skills.

They had a similar issue at my niece's school. All playground games had to be adapted for a wheelchair user to the point it was becoming silly and was restricting the other children from getting the full body exercise they needed at break time. They had to pull back from it.

Yanbu and to be honest i think its ok for your friend to say she'll offer adapted or alternative activities where possible, but that not every activity can be adapted without defeating the point of the class, which is for the children to learn skills.

They had a similar issue at my niece's school. All playground games had to be adapted for a wheelchair user to the point it was becoming silly and was restricting the other children from getting the full body exercise they needed at break time. They had to pull back from it.

Why can't it be both? But nowhere have I said it's rigorous professional training - you've made that up. Pretending I said something I didn't makes your argument look even more ridiculous.

When I undertake a hobby I try to be the best that I can be at it. If I take up painting I don't slosh the paint around in a "that will do" manner. The kids perform all the exercises as well as they can - or what's the point? They aim for perfection for themselves. I think that's a good thing.

The vast majority know your argument is unrealistic and unfair. Maybe it's time to accept that. It isn't ablist to allow children to excel.

Give up, you sound ridiculous. It never was a "fun" class, if you bothered to read anything properly. It's irrelevant anyway, the class is whatever the instructor intends it to be and why the students join up to learn. Just stop it.

if they really can’t include the child in the wheelchair (and presumably others) they should make it clear that the class is selective and hold auditions.

They are including the child in the wheelchair (and no, not 'presumably others' as there actually are none) in all possible activities and keeping them consistently occupied in other groups when the rare activity that can't be adjusted for them takes place. It's wild to leap from that reality to this extreme in your head that it has to be absolutely everything for everyone or selective audition based rigorous professional training.

Anyone can become disabled and in fact most of us will at some point. If/when it happens to you I hope people are kinder to you than they are to this boy and his mum. The language and attitudes on this forum have been horrible.

It is hard though isn't it because yes on one hand he shouldnt be excluded but on the other hand does that mean the teacher needs to spend extra time planning for how to include him in the activities? Who is going to pay her time for the extra planning? Does she need to spend extra time giving him specific instructions on the day, does that mean the other kids now get one less activity per session as she doesn't have the time to do what she used to do?

I may be cruel but personally I would put the group above the individual, I will make any simple adjustments I can and include him as much as I can but ultimately he does have extra needs and they cant always be catered to.

You should read the posts more carefully. I and several others are disabled and disagree with your stance. I don’t expect the world to revolve around my needs.

This is similar to what happened to us.
We could easily adjust snacks and termly cooking activities to the child's dietary needs and restrictions as part of our core provision.
Mum was adamant that we couldn't meet child's medical care needs for additional day trips/ residentials. The irony is that we had leaders in a position to do additional training to fill that gap, but mum always abandoned the conversation at that point.
When we announced additional trips, there were always little loaded comments that Flossie couldn't go because we couldn't meet her needs/ keep her safe on our communications that looked to the other parents like we were negligent.

It would have been deeply unreasonable to abandon those extras for years for one child because it would have deprived the others of valuable opportunities. It would also have risked our long term numbers and reputation which would impact our offering long after Flossie would have moved on anyway.

We did what we reasonably could for Flossie and then some, but we have to consider the rest of the group's needs and our longevity too.

Suppose a child in that class had no hands, or no motor control in their hands. Should the other children not learn to write, because one child can't so would be excluded from that activity?

I have a disability. What I don’t do is go around trying to assure that what isn’t possible for me is also impossible for anyone else.
”Fighting for something” is about fighting for the right to try or access something within your own personal limits not to try and limit something for someone else.

props to that mother for advocating for her son in the face of such vitriol.

What vitriol? What evidence do you have of any 'vitriol' in C's interactions with the boy's mother?

no props to that mother. Her child can do this class with the adjustments made or her child can not do the class, and she can search for some solely accessible stage classes. There is no where all the other children get their experience radically cut back so every piece of it is wheelchair accessible. The mother is actively blocking her child from this experience

Don't worry OP, we disabled people are all to well aware that not everything is inclusive, in fact, hardly anything is. However, as other posters have charmingly put it, it's good for this child to learn early on how unwelcome he will be in most public spaces, so, in that way, your friend is doing him a favour.
I don't think your friend has much to worry about. If the posts on this thread mirror public opinion then her doing the bare minimum to allow him to participate in the odd activity is apparently fine. Still, I must say that essentially referring to him and his wheelchair as a trip hazard and inconvenience for the other able-bodied children is pretty low.
Just once, it would be nice if accessibility was something that able-bodied people took into consideration when planning activities and events, not just something done begrudgingly as an after-thought if a troublesome disabled person has the nerve to want to join in with something that able-bodied people can do without a second thought. I am fed up of accessibility always being provided with such bad grace and as though the provider is doing the disabled person a great favour.
As I always say, some of the posters on this thread, who seem happy to accept the partial exclusion of a disabled child from activities rather than changing them in any way to accommodate him, would do well to remember that you and your loved ones are just one illness or accident away from a severe physical disability of your very own. I think you may change your tune when activities you enjoy are suddenly inaccessible to you.

It's also very telling how many posters on this thread are aghast at the idea that able-bodied children's activities need to be modified to accommodate a disabled child, but the same posters are completely happy with the exclusion of a disabled child from activities. That these posters seem blissfully unaware or unconcerned by the incongruity of their opinions is both extremely depressing and unsurprising.

@Everlore

I don't think your friend has much to worry about. If the posts on this thread mirror public opinion then her doing the bare minimum to allow him to participate in the odd activity is apparently fine.

But that's not what is happening. Why do you think lying about it helps your case? There are a very few exercises he cannot participate in. He is always occupied in an activity and doesn't sit on the sidelines watching. Most of the activities he does take part in, either totally or in an adapted way. But don't let the truth get in the way of your prejudice.

This disabled person has no problem with other people being able to access things I can't. I admire the effort of all who try their best in any activity.

I think you may change your tune when activities you enjoy are suddenly inaccessible to you.

No, I haven't. As you'd know if you'd bother to read my posts properly. I am disabled and I didn't used to be. I enjoy doing the things I can do and am not in the least bitter or sarky about that which I can't do. And I wouldn't dream of trying to prevent others from doing what they can. That's plain unpleasant.