Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Disablism

811 replies

BishopBrennansArse · 17/10/2016 11:06

Shiny new thread.

Hopefully won't get derailed.

OP posts:
BishopBrennansArse · 19/10/2016 14:51

Begin education with me please.
I suspect my position is not acceptable: though it seems very logical to me. I promise that I am not trying to be goady. My DD(12) is under assessment for aspergers/high functioning ASD and I suspect that were the same diagnostic criteria used when I was a child I'd be on the spectrum...as it is I'm just a scientist with low emotional intelligence.
Right: my position (which is based on what I was taught in the 80s I guess). People with a disability are firstly people and secondly a person with a disability. It is morally and legally appropriate that modifications are provided to (for want of a abetter word) counteract the disability as much as possible to allow the person to do whatever they would choose to do if they did not have a disability, but people should all be treated equally beyond that. yep

Thus, on the thread with the Dad with the child with a disability: my expectation would be that the employer would provide shorter hours or flexible working as necessary, the workmate would cut some slack if they were friends, but the Father himself should still do good quality work for the time that he is in the office/fulfil whatever contract has been agreed with management and workmates should not be disadvantaged. Is this disablist? no - the objections to the thread were based on the OP making massive assumptions with very little facts and blaming a carer for problems in the workplace when actually it was poor management. The OP didn't know what had and hadn't been agreed and the workload issues were down to management not assessing the impact of adjustments made in the rest of the team or monitoring a discipline issue as appropriate. In summary they were blaming the parent of a disabled child for something that should be sorted via and by management, does that clarify?

Or: at a music festival: 3 toilet cubicles in a portacabin, one accessible cabin standing alone. 20 people queueing. My position would be that everyone without a disability queues together but the accessible cubicle still gets used if it's available when someone gets to the front. If someone who specifically needs the accessible cubicle comes along they go straight up to it rather than joining the combined queue. Is this disablist?
yes and no - in theory this is a reasonable principle, in practice you always get those who will not let the disabled person 'queue jump' - having personally encountered this selfishness makes me more inclined to believe the one disabled cubicle should be used only by disabled people to preserve the dignity of those with urge continence issues. I'd far rather preserve dignity as its one really big issue when you have physical disability and the able bodied loo users have many more cubicles than one

ASD generally seems to be so different between people it's really difficult to make accommodation without asking for lots of information on the individual up-front. Is making presumption based on generalities in the absence of individual knowledge disablist? For example: I run a Brownie unit and we have had girls with ASD in the group. Each one is different but based on our experience there are a couple of things which all have had in common: if I tell a new parent that we have a quiet box in the kitchen away from the group or that we provide a coloured card for the girl to show to their nominated leader when they want to withdraw rather than having to put their hand up or make a scene, rather than just asking what they want initially...is this disablist ? no that's reasonable adjustment. One thing I would say though is rather than telling a parent what you offer it may be better to have a meeting with the leaders and discuss what adjustments would help the individual child. Some ASD adjustments trigger my DD. My eldest and youngest children both attend the most wonderful inclusive scout group and they are all about the individual rather than use a one size fits all approach according to disability

I would like to be a useful advocate. My DH used to be a care worker for young adults with a genetic disorder linked to a variety of traits/behaviours and disabilities. Overtly disabled language is banned in our house. I'm not convinced we're as informed as we should be.

OP posts:
GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 15:02

The ideas put forward almost unanimously seem to be "well, it's not perfect, but when it comes down to it, I can't have my child's learning affected by it" even to the point of admitting that putting all the "disruptive children" together means they will learn far less than the other children, but basically what ya gonna do?

So so demoralising.

ShowMeTheElf · 19/10/2016 15:06

Isn't that the same argument used for all selective education though Ivy?
Putting the academic children into Grammar means that they become more academic.
Putting the studious children into one class means they become more studious
Putting the 'disruptive children' into one class means they become more disruptive/ed.
Is it disablist or just conservatism (small c) ?

ShowMeTheElf · 19/10/2016 15:10

I think in a school debate of that type any parent (except the most laid back in the world) would advocate the position which would most benefit their child: if the parent perceives that academic attainment is pivotal and their child is up to it they will advocate removal of more difficult characters, a more structured educational approach etc. If their child is a bit of a dreamer and benefits form a varied group dynamic where they aren't pushed too hard but encouraged to engage then that's what they will go for. if their child is one of the children branded 'difficult' they will presumably fight to stop their child being put into a cohort where evidence shows they will progress more slowly.

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 15:15

And you think the thought process that says "well, if we lump all the disruptive children together that's okay, even though it means they learn less than the rest of the children, as long as they're not bothering our normal children" is okay then?

I am so glad we home educate now and don't have to deal with this rubbish on a daily basis.

CandyMcJingles · 19/10/2016 15:18

I've started a thread in chat entitled Please can anyone explain?
I want to know why I can see something that others insist isn't there and what mistakes I am making. I'm entitled to ask. After all MN is for advice and support.

ShowMeTheElf · 19/10/2016 15:23

No, that's not what I'm saying at all!!! Really no.
What I'm saying is that most parents would advocate any position which they feel advantages their own child. Some parents will feel that the book learning is the most important thing and will push other children aside to get what they perceive to the 'the best' for their own children. It isn't right, but it is what happens.
My position, for what it's worth, is that at Primary level it is far more important to learn life lessons about different people and getting different experience, so I'd advocate a comprehensive approach. I've never really had to test this though: If there was a child who was repeatedly hurting my child I like to think that I'd be able to calmly ask what was being done to protect my child while not asking what was being done to support the other child as it is none of my business, but by the time I was wound up enough to go in to school I can't guarantee my coherency.

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 15:24

And the assumptions begin. I take breaks from even touching any of those kind of threads for months at a time, as I get so frustrated at the obvious disabilism involved, but stupidly, I step back into the fray here and there, and nothing really changes. Ever.

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 15:25

It isn't right, but it is what happens.

And there it is. You see? It's not right. But people just sleepwalk around it. It's what happens so just deal with it, right?

This is why we need change. This is why we get frustrated.

Owllady · 19/10/2016 15:28

Candy :o
I don't know how 'I'm not talking about your child, I'm talking about someone elses' is ever an excuse or reason either!

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 15:32

Well, I've clearly stepped into it in the other thread. I'm apparently passive aggressive and shouting discrimination. Surprise, surprise.

Meh.

Sgoinneal · 19/10/2016 15:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ShowMeTheElf · 19/10/2016 15:39

If you have an NT child you still want to protect them. Does the chair hurt their head less if it's thrown by a child with a disability or a little shit?

The school should have a duty of care to protect all the children. If a non-NT child disrupts the education or injures their classmates then the school has not made the necessary adjustments to give the disabled person (child) the same opportunity for learning that the others have, but the classmates are losing out as well.

I don't know where I'm going with this: just that it isn't necessarily about the disability, but the behaviour.

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 15:40

head - desk.

ShowMeTheElf · 19/10/2016 15:44

so explain to me please. Not every disruptive child has a disability.
A child with a disability should and must have accommodation/provision made.

A parent moaning about behaviour in class would not necessarily be aware of any provision/disability because it's none of their business.
Why is it therefore disabilism?
I get that I'm irritating you but I am not trying to. Please. I got feminism in the end. I can do this too.

Ausernotanumber · 19/10/2016 15:49

Why have we not had any comment from HQ despite the multitude of reports and questions on this thread?

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 15:55

A child with a disability should and must have accommodation/provision made.

Yes, they should. Do they? Often not.

A parent moaning about behaviour in class would not necessarily be aware of any provision/disability because it's none of their business.
Why is it therefore disabilism?

They may not be aware of any provision or disability, but surely in this day and age, they should be aware of the possibility, rather than assuming the child is naughty. The disruptive children in these types of posts are almost exclusively referred to as naughty, loud, disruptive, brats, little shits, and so on. Righteous parents working themselves into a froth over the indignity of it all - these dreadful disruptive badly behaved children impacting on their quiet well behaved children. Until someone pops their head up over the parapet and points out that perhaps, just perhaps that child has SNs. And the righteous parents point their cannons at that errant parent that has reminded them that they're so busy judging the child's behaviour that they've not even considered this possibility. And they get angry - because nobody likes to be told they're potentially being disabilist, so they become defensive and nasty.

You think the relationship boards have a script? Seriously - the threads with disablism have a pretty secure script as well.

BishopBrennansArse · 19/10/2016 16:05

If a child is able to hurt another child then the school is not meeting either child's needs. NT or SN. It's not down to the child or the parents.

OP posts:
BishopBrennansArse · 19/10/2016 16:07

Sorry show me. You started reasonably enough and I was prepared to engage. You then completely ignored that engagement and commenced "yeahbut" school of goading so don't expect any further engagement.

OP posts:
ShowMeTheElf · 19/10/2016 16:12

Not trying to be goady.
Not ever been in the situation. Threads I have seen generally end up with parent being told to contact school. Of course it's a school issue (I haven't seen one where child blamed: is that because I'm not tuned in to it...this is why I was asking). Not unreasonable for parent to be concerned though?

There's something here I don't understand, can't ask without causing offence. Sorry. It was not my intention.

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 16:14

Well, I think I've proved my point. I've been accused of being passive aggressive, shouting discrimination (when I didn't even MENTION the word), told I'm putting words in other people's mouths when I clearly was not, and now being pulled up and lectured on how to phrase questions appropriately.

And yet... nobody has answered the question I initially asked. If none of the parents want the "disruptive child" to sit by their child, where exactly is the disruptive child supposed to be seated?

Hmm I've said absolutely nothing that should delete any of my posts. I've not made any personal attacks. I shouldn't see any deletions. We'll see.

BishopBrennansArse · 19/10/2016 16:15

Concerned that school aren't meeting needs or supervising correctly, yes. Concerned at the child being there no.

OP posts:
GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 16:18

I haven't seen one where child blamed: is that because I'm not tuned in to it...this is why I was asking)

Think about it. Who are they blaming for the problem when they call the child the "naughty" child, the "disruptive" child, the "talkative" child. Are they saying "the child that is not receiving enough support from the school, so they are struggling" in class? I've never seen a thread start out with that.

Ausernotanumber · 19/10/2016 16:20

I'm done for a while folks. I need to step back. This is doing me no good at all. I have been relentlessly attacked and there are them and us posters and it appears I'm just not equal enough for protection from HQ in the same way as some other posters.

Good luck to those of you carrying on.

GingerIvy · 19/10/2016 16:29

I'm going to have to as well. Seriously being attacked for my form by a couple posters repeatedly in how I ask questions - they can question everything I say, but the moment I come back at all, I'm accused of being passive aggressive and defensive. Just absolutely nuts.