to hate the term "special needs"

[witchandchips]

to find it at best patronising and at worst offensive. What does a wheelchair user have in common with some one on the austic spectrum? Apart from allocating funding across schools why do we need a catch all term, surely it plays into the hands of those who think anybody different is "stupid"

I've not read all the posts but agree that even, say, two people with CP or two people on the autistic spectrum can have entirely different needs. Focussing on the condition itself can be even more of a distraction. My sister has CP and it is amazing the assumptions people make about her based on their own experience of people with CP. Better to concentrate on ways to accomodate any special/particular/additional needs than on remembering the precise condition.

I prefer additional needs for my two.

They need everything every other child needs, plus some extra things - so additional suits their specific situation, I think.

I don't like to get into the whole everyone else should use X term for every person because it is the term I prefer. I think that the rule is - whatever term the individual and their family prefer is the right term for them!

There are a few people who have asked me in an oh so patronising tone what to call them and I get arsey and snootily say "why, 'bill' & 'ben' of course." (insert their actual names naturally!) ... passes a message!

I use the term to describe DS4 to others a he currently doesn't have a dx.

The old couple who glared at him as he chattered and squawked through the Harvest Festival service at church yesterday for example seemed to need an explanantion as to why I wasn't controlling my 'naughty' son.

Don't like it though , I should say. I just tend to say he has a speech disorder when I meet new people but it is so much more than that i can't think of how else to describe him.

hmm do you think there's a term everyone will be happy with? If you wait a bit longer I'm sure it'll change again to something else until that new word becomes stigmatised.. besides you don't have to use that term nothing is stopping you using another one.

Upwind@s post to me proves how you can't win(no offence to upwind)
if I say dd has sn that doesn't really describe her needs, If I say cp(which is what sh has) I would then have to go into a lengthy explanation.
in rl I say she is severely disabled. on here I say she has sn/cp and on;y throw the severely disabled in if I need to expand.

Surely it depends on the context. I can see why you would prefer to say "this is my child ben" and then add "who uses a wheelchair" if appropriate to the situation. Rather than "this is my SN child ben"

But you do need a general term. You might say "this building needs work it to make it suitable for SN children" as shorthand for "it will need ramps, special toilets, etc, etc, etc.

Hecate, I liked your answer there. but I think sometimes when people are talking and they realise the end of their current sentence requires a general term they think "oh shit. What is the current acceptable term?"

There is a need for a catch all term, and i think whatever it was would upset someone, i prefer learning support, but that doesn't work outside school or to a specific person. A collegue did a disertation on disability, and argues the person isn't disabled, the environment is often disabling and the challenge s to remove obstacles. SEN is a million miles better than remedial, it wasn't that long ago that was the term of choice

Yes Riven - though my sister does have some additional needs, she is not severely disabled but your DD and my friend's DD are. The term cerebral palsy does not always provide useful information as to the accomodations that should be made or the level of care that is necessary.

Obviously I mean yes saint2shoes

The real problem is labelling, I'm trying to remember the term used before special needs.. what was it?

I don't have a problem with it.
DS1 has Asperger's syndrome and "Special Needs" is an accurate description of what is required for him.
However, I get your point, I wouldn't argue the toss though as I don't feel passionate about a "title". We are all different.

The Disability Politics movement point out that 'SN' comes out of the medical model of disability because it focusses on the 'special needs' of the person rather than the fact that disability is caused as much by the environment / lack of provision (the social model).

I would never refer to an adult as having 'special needs' - I associate it very much with provision for children - much as Pagwatch describes.

I have no idea how to describe DS. Currently a wheelchair user, sometimes he is 'disabled' on the social model, in or out of his chair, sometimes he isn't. Sometimes I say 'he has mobility difficulties' or 'a dodgy leg'.

wonderstuff, that's interesting about "person isn't disabled, the environment is often disabling and the challenge is to remove obstacles".

I can see why someone would say it to try and avoid making someone feel somehow 'less' than others, but it feels like denial to me.

A person in a wheelchair can't get to the top floor so we put a ramp or lift in. That seems sensible to me. But if I can't fly from the top floor of this tower block to the top floor of the adjacent block no one says my evironment is disabling. In practice we define what's reasonable by saying this is what most people are able to do. Someone who can't do that is disabled. It's just the flip side of able if you see what I mean.

my sister as an adult always says "...because of my problems" she never seems bothered about the words that well-meaning people use

I think Rebelmum is right to take the long view.

Blu

"Sometimes I say 'he has mobility difficulties' or 'a dodgy leg'"
Sometimes you just have to dig deep for those medical terms don't you

My Ds1 once said " he has severe communication difficulties on the autistic spectrum or, to paraphrase, he'd really like you to get the fuck out of his face now"

I should add that he is a very nice boy who rarely swears but it did make me laugh.

But onager once you put in the ramp and the lift etc the wheelchair user is no more disabled than you, they are able to access the building in the same way iyswim, the stairs disable them. I teach a child with one hand, and i don't notice it because in my lessons she is doesn't present a problem, so she isnt 'disabled' at that time.

she is doesn't?? sorry it doesn't

I think it's fine. My son has Aspergers. He has particular learning needs - ie someone to keep him on task, people around who understand his - yes, needs - and behaviour and know that the usual disciplinary approach to 'bad' behaviour won't work, plus he has dyspraxia, for whihc he needs a special cushion so he can sit on the floor with the other kids, special understanding of his muscle weakness and lack of coordination, and special tuition so that hopefully other people (and even ds himself) will one day be able to read his handwriting, plus a whole host of other special/particular/additional needs. What matters to me is that he gets his needs met, I find petty nitpicking about language rather tiresome. As long as it's not insulting or abusive, it suits me. You do need a catch-all term for the whole spectrum of disability in schools from dyslexia to children who cannot walk to those with complex medical needs because they all need more money and more people.

Obviously asd or dyslexia are more challenging, but you wouldn't say a dyslexic was disabled would you? But they both have additional/specific/special needs

I am also not entirely convinced by the social model of disability and agree it has a large measure of denial. Of course good provision can hugely ameliorate the effect of disability, but it doesn't remove or totally neutralise it.

Wonderstuff, ok that's a good point. I like that.

Still, if you take a group on a trip then you can reasonably expect your group to be able to enter the building at the other end, but you may have to call ahead about ramps for those in your group who have special needs. So the 'disability' is still there even if it's not a problem right this minute.

I agree with others that it is best to use whatever term suits you and your family.

I admit i don't really like the term SN though. Simply because it is so difficult to use it to express what is going on.
For example, DSD has behavioural difficulties and possibly some learning difficulties as well.
Her school teacher stated a few times "oh we think she has special needs...."
Umm, ok, so what exactly do you mean by that then?

When dd was put on the gifted list we were again told by her school upon asking for an explanation of what it actually meant for her "oh well, it means that she is at the other end of the special needs spectrum..."
Again, ummm ok what exactly does that actually mean then?

Truth be told it means bollocks all. Both schools were actually talking about additional educational needs but how would i know how to correct them on that?
Kids don't come with a glossary of terms and their meanings, however, if they had said we think dsd/dd has additional needs, heres why and heres what we intend to do i would have been more than happy.

The term special needs, in my limited experience and opinion simply isn't suitable as a catchall. I remember being absolutely slaughtered by a few of you ladies on here in one of my first posts because i had repeated what dd's school had told me. Thing
is, as i said before how would i know any different and if i had used the term additional needs would i have got the same response?
I don't think i would because it would have been far more clear that i wasn't comparing my dc particular needs to those of say a child with severe cp.

I know i'm rambling here but i feel that the term special needs can be misleading whereas the term additional needs does what it says on the tin.