New MN campaign around children with special needs

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Following on from this, um, lively thread from a couple of weeks back, we wanted to follow up on kungfupannda's excellent suggestion of an MNHQ-backed awareness-raising campaign aimed at - in kungfupannda's words - 'making it absolutely, uncompromisingly clear that in order to fully include children with severe disabilities, people might have to accept a bit of disruption once in a while.'

We were thinking about something along the lines of our We Believe You campaign on rape myths; that is to say, an ongoing awareness-raising project aimed at the general public, rather than a short-term campaign with specific policy requests attached. We would be thinking about pages on Mumsnet itself featuring the experiences of our posters, activity on our Bloggers Network, ye olde Twitter hashtagge, and any press coverage we can grab.

The suggestion on the thread was for the campaign to be called 'Tolerance is...', but we at MNHQ are a little unsure about the word 'tolerance' (which can suggest barely-contained irritation, rather than the kind of empathetic understanding and generosity of spirit we'd all like to see). So we were wondering whether something along the lines of 'This is my child' would work better?

Please feel free to use this thread to give us any feedback and ideas, and generally let us know what you think.

Thanks
MNHQ

[notnagging]

He has & is now expanding into primary. He cant refuse to take children with special needs can he? But it is a free school so Im not sure of the rules.
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9405989/My-first-free-school-has-passed-the-test-now-for-the-next-one.html

[devientenigma]

This thread has now made me very uncomfortable on MN. I feel like I can't post or comment to much now. Yes it's been a lifeline for me, especially being stuck in the house 24/7 with DS. However after I tie up lose ends that will be me gone. I don't know if my posts stay even though I'm gone so if they don't it won't matter if anyone sees this or not.

I think the start of the campaign based on special needs and severe disability needs clarity around what special needs and severe disability are.

[sickofsocalledexperts]

Hang on, I thought Toby Young specifically said he wasn't referring to SEN kids in the 2nd article quoted. Let's not hang him without fair trial

[notnagging]

I don't think he would have been allowed to open a free school if he genuinely had thoughts like the ones quoted before but who knows.

[Peachy]

I think he's fairly well known as an academic elitist but no, he wouldn;t be alloed to open a free school that did not accept kids with SN.

But the stats don't seem very inclusive about who generally is gaining admittance (NOT just to his school, to all free schools in general)

Also- and this is a debate I've had with my LEA recently- would YOU want your child attending a school where you knew they were really either unwanted or that the placement did not feel they can cope with them? Because I would not.

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello and sorry about the echoing silence; we've been mulling. Here's what we think (and apologies in advance if any of the terminology in here is off - as Peachy's response to our RT shows, lots of us here at MNHQ need a bit of schooling in these matters too).

We hear you when you say you want this campaign to be about all people with additional/specific needs, not just the under-18s. Those of you who suspected that we were thinking about the under-18s were right; this is because the thread in question was very much about the behaviour of a young child, and over the years there have been many eloquent posts by parents who are upset or angry about other people's reactions to their children's behaviour.

We're still inclined to make this a campaign about under-18s (although, in the end, if that's not something our posters want, it won't get off the ground and we'll have to think again!) The campaign space is crowded - even in a specific area like disability - and in order to get any traction or attention, you need to think carefully about your angle. Over the years, we've come to believe that we are at our most effective when we campaign on things that are very specific, and which speak to what the media and the public in general expects from us. As a site for parents, we think we could make a fairly big noise in the area of children with additional needs and the perception of their behaviour: it's a very specific issue, one that hasn't been widely addressed, and one that we think could catch people's imaginations.

We also think it has a very specific purpose, which is to get people to consider whether the behaviour they're seeing is 'naughtiness' or something else. Much as this is an idea that's fairly familiar to MNers because of the many debates we've had over the years, we suspect it's a completely novel idea to many in the wider public.

While we can see from the thread that people want a very broad campaign about lots of different aspects of disability, inclusion and perception, in our experience it's much more difficult to get the press and public to take an interest in this sort of thing: without a single, sharp, specific angle, the whole thing risks being written off as a bit vague and unfocussed.

As PolterGoose says: 'I agree with hazeyjane if the campaign is too broad it will become meaningless. There needs to be a reasonably tight focus to mean something to those it is aimed at. To cover the full range of disabilities, plus all ages, plus parents/carers is just too huge.'

That's not to say that the material associated with the campaign couldn't cover lots of the brilliant ideas here (we love the stuff about stats, about language, about the law, about the different conditions and impairments that people can be born with and/or acquire, about challenging 'DLA scrounger' myths, and about equality and respect); we just think we need to be careful about the top-line focus. As we're sure many of you know only too well, many disability awareness campaigns have come and gone over the last couple of decades, many of them without making a big impact.

Anyway, that's our thinking - but it's not the last word by any means. This isn't going to work unless MNers are happy with it. So do let us know what you think.

And we will, of course, give serious consideration to asking Lidl to partner up with us

[sickofsocalledexperts]

I agree - I think Mumsnet is basically a brand about mums and kids, and therefore that is the campaign that would work best.

[sickofsocalledexperts]

Can you work in something against ugly words like retard and mong? Ugly words lead to ugly actions, as they demean and dehumanise

[LesBOFerables]

Sounds good to me, Rowan.

[FancyPuffin]

Sounds good to me as well Rowan

[Oblomov]

I was prompted to read this thread from a post by devient, on a different thread.
Glad I did.
Not sure how far we have actually moved on though?

I may not thave THAT much to contribute, because ds1 could never be considered severe anyway. But by god, even with mild, we have been through the ringer, like people (other than MN SN) could never imagine.

[Davros]

Has anyone noticed the MN campaign of the week with Dimensions? Might have already been mentioned, sorry if it has

[sickofsocalledexperts]

It might be a bit too shocking, but what about a photo of a beautiful boy like mine and a strapline:

Don't call him "retard", call him Robbie

Or

Don't call him a Downs syndrome child, call him Alfie

[Peachy]

The campaign would certainly help us in that format, esp. the naughtiness thing, although I worry it will alienate those with children whose disability is more obvious.

Now from a personal perspective I'd welcome the help with the boys but it's a shame for the wider SN community- but again as you say wider campaigns do not work, so

argh, but at least once we know it's about then there is something to work with.


I think there'd be mileage across the board though is targeting language- I know lots of kids get called spaz and retard: mine certainly do. I remember being referred to by a teacher myself as That Cretin.

[ouryve]

I think something like "Words matter" is a pretty strong and specific focus. Anyone who has been reading the news has probably seen "autistic" used as an insult, today.

[Leithlurker]

Thank you Rowan for the update it is good to know what MN are thinking.

The focus on children is ok, but please no discussion of individual impairments as this is doing exactly what the problem is, seeing the impairment not the person. I agree that to focus on behaviour misses out huge numbers of children with more viable disabilities, as well as those that are non verbal, or would seem to have limited quality of life. If you are the parent of a child who has no option but to go out in a very large wheelchair with headrest, leg, and foot rests, perhaps with a nasal air or feeding tube. It will not be that child causing disruption at a pantomime. Although they may make noise to show happiness and enjoyment. If anything it will be the non disabled children staring, or wanting to "know" things about the child in the wheelchair that may cause the issues for the wider audience.

Might it be that what MN are actually thinking of is something not about the wide spectrum of disability at all but more to do with children who are on the autistic spectrum, or who have learning disabilities, or who have emotional or cognitive issues. It would be perfectly fair to focus on them and save the hassle of trying to cover all aspects. It could still have messages about education in the mainstream for all children, as well as rights not charity themes. People first would be a good charity that deals with people with learning disability, or the autistic society are also good. Partnering with them will give MN a way to connect with live issues in those communities at the moment as well as allowing those with the widest range of experience and knowledge to help you devise the campaign.

If you do to talk about different health issues then do it intelligently by presenting both facts and case studies as well as support pages, specific support group, add to your local pages contact details for local not national bodies. Balance medical knowledge with educational, and social aspects. Lastly try to avoid the triumph over tragedy stuff. Each child will have both of each experience without generalising about those with the same impairments.

[StillSlightlyCrumpled]

Coming in late to this, but maybe having to focus on the child aspect is just a start. I think in the forefront of anyone's mind with a child with SN is that one day they will be an adult with a whole host of new troubles to deal with. It would be great to just cover everything, as surely it's attitudes in general we want to change, whether that's towards a child, teenager or an adult. I do accept though that may just be too huge in the first instance.

As this thread shows, having a child with SN in common doesn't make us all agree. I, for instance, like the Holland poem for my family. Life is slower for my child with his syndrome, and it gave us great comfort in the early days post diagnosis. I am almost embarrassed to have found comfort from it when I read comments about it on here. It is a fabulous start that MN are looking at doing a campaign.

[bialystockandbloom]

I agree that a campaign focussing on the behaviour aspect is potentially hazardous. It's such a fine line between those who really do 'get it', and those who think that conditions like autism, adhd etc are somehow made-up conditions enabling 'bad behaviour'.

It's also the case that not all people with disabilities like this have 'bad' behaviour! My ds wouldn't be picked out of a crowd but obv still has asd.

Also I'd like to see something a bit more positive (rather than highlighting an aspect that can be perceived and portrayed as a negative one) about real inclusion and real support.

But otoh there needs to be something to really challenge the mainstream lack of awareness and understanding, which is imo the most important thing about a campaign, so I'm all in favour of something really hard-hitting. Just not sure focussing on a narrow and single aspect like behaviour is the right way to go.

[TapselteerieO]

I agree about focus on children as long as it encompasses all - so not just about autism.

I also like what zzz said re additional needs not special needs.

[schoolhassle]

'Include me, not exclude me' would be a good slogan.
My ds has recently been permanently excluded because of his behaviour due to his disabilities .

[Leithlurker]

I was just looking again at Rowen's last post and wonder where the Lidl bit comes in? Can anyone help a poor old soul catch up?