Perspectives on special needs

longman said:

To be honest nearly everything does. Packs (troops, tribes...) of monkeys will turn against any individual not able to conform. It is a matter of survival - the pack needs every member to respond in the interests of the pack.

Humans used to expose children perceived abnormal, just leave them to die or get eaten by wild animals.

We've improved slightly as a species. What we've got here though is the behaviour of the privileged or upper echelons, who appear to lack the civilisation the rest of us aspire to.

I concur that the private schools are a business and need to streamline to compete. But it doesn't justify the cruelty of this eletist thinking. The private schools should demonstrate responsibility and set an example (given their argument for existence is training future leaders, businessmen, professionals). The attitude shown by Eton, boasting how few of their students need help, is not an example of higher ability or intelligence. I'm singularly unimpressed.

The universities have generally responded well to disability. The only problem has been the tendancy to interpret the social model as mere "levelling of the playing field" - coloured handouts and extra time in exams, has led to abuses. There's a long way to go.

On the whole the newer universities may be better for students with AS. They are more likely to have better pastoral care. Having been a teacher in the "newer" end of the HE market 20 years, and a disability coordinator, I've been convinced the new universities do this better.

The trouble with Russell Group is they got a consultancy group to write their disability procedures, and I think there is less personal touch. Also Russell Group universities, because of research excellence committments, tend to have only junior lecturers and postgraduate assistants engaged directly with undergraduates, and are less supportive generally.

I believe, and I do not say this lightly, given the level of adversity and isolation many endure, that autism has a purpose. It does generate original thinkers, people who can persevere to break scientific codes and create new insights. I think it is essential to human survival.

We just need to understand this better, and determine what can be done for those who are adversely and detrimentally affected by it, rather than putting all the effort into finding a cure.

Going back to the pack of monkeys - I reckon that's the Eton attitude. Excluding the weakest somehow makes for an elete. I said it before and I'll say it again - I'm not impressed. Eton ought to do the decent thing and produce a humane and accessible account of its special education needs support, rather than presenting indifference and ignorance.

You'll love this Longman: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/24/rackets-player-ben-cawston-private-school-tournament-_n_5020183.html?ncid=webmail21

I don't condone what they do, merely understand the driving force behind it.  I firmly believe that the world would be worse off without autism for many reasons.

I love the fact that my son's see the world somewhat differently and it has opened my eyes and hopefully made me a better person.

...well if they take that attitude, they will miss out on all those autistic savants and potential Einsteins of the world...cutting nose to spite face methinks.

To be honest nearly everything does. Packs (troops, tribes...) of monkeys will turn against any individual not able to conform. It is a matter of survival - the pack needs every member to respond in the interests of the pack.

Humans used to expose children perceived abnormal, just leave them to die or get eaten by wild animals.

We've improved slightly as a species. What we've got here though is the behaviour of the privileged or upper echelons, who appear to lack the civilisation the rest of us aspire to.

I concur that the private schools are a business and need to streamline to compete. But it doesn't justify the cruelty of this eletist thinking. The private schools should demonstrate responsibility and set an example (given their argument for existence is training future leaders, businessmen, professionals). The attitude shown by Eton, boasting how few of their students need help, is not an example of higher ability or intelligence. I'm singularly unimpressed.

The universities have generally responded well to disability. The only problem has been the tendancy to interpret the social model as mere "levelling of the playing field" - coloured handouts and extra time in exams, has led to abuses. There's a long way to go.

On the whole the newer universities may be better for students with AS. They are more likely to have better pastoral care. Having been a teacher in the "newer" end of the HE market 20 years, and a disability coordinator, I've been convinced the new universities do this better.

The trouble with Russell Group is they got a consultancy group to write their disability procedures, and I think there is less personal touch. Also Russell Group universities, because of research excellence committments, tend to have only junior lecturers and postgraduate assistants engaged directly with undergraduates, and are less supportive generally.

I believe, and I do not say this lightly, given the level of adversity and isolation many endure, that autism has a purpose. It does generate original thinkers, people who can persevere to break scientific codes and create new insights. I think it is essential to human survival.

We just need to understand this better, and determine what can be done for those who are adversely and detrimentally affected by it, rather than putting all the effort into finding a cure.

Going back to the pack of monkeys - I reckon that's the Eton attitude. Excluding the weakest somehow makes for an elete. I said it before and I'll say it again - I'm not impressed. Eton ought to do the decent thing and produce a humane and accessible account of its special education needs support, rather than presenting indifference and ignorance.

Maybe snakes...

My personal experience of private ed and disability was that as soon as my son started showing behavioural problems that required more of the teachers time, I started to find myself being more and more isolated from the other parents.  

As it was a fee paying school, the parents had high demands and expectations and resented these resources being diluted because of my child needing additional help.

In the end I removed him as parents started to say nasty things about him, but in a way that sounds as if they are being kind, such as "don't you think he would be happier if he went to a school for children liked him"

Private schools are at the end of the day a business and sadly,  in order to stay in business,  they have to provide what their customers want, so schools discriminate in order to ensure their product is what the market wants, customer driven.

I am now seeing this mentality creeping into state university's.  Now that fees are being charged students are starting to complain about the service they are getting, their expectations are going to drive uni's to become more selective, just like private schools.

I predict that the outcomes for our disabled children going to a good uni is going to get harder and not easier because uni's will have to discriminate in order to survive, the only exception being those student's who bring more to the table than the average student and can therefore used as "advertising"

Are there any other species that turn on each other like this, can't think of  any.

I found this post really interesting, parts of which I knew already other parts news to me but not surprising given how I feel about the current cabinet. I'm not eloquent enough to put it into words like yours but share your passion and wanted to say, thanks for putting it in such a way that was easy to read.

I think also there is a risk that they fail to help pupils with less obvous disability.

Plenty of students reach university with undetected dyslexia, and some few with undetected asperger's.

With such a blase attitude to special education needs they are potentially less likely to spot the youngster with difficulties. But then if you can afford these places and you cannot tell the difference between real disability understanding and pretend, maybe you deserve what you get.

What I found extraordinary though was their total failure to address mobility issues. Visitors might be wheelchair users but never pupils. So wheelchair users aren't clever enough for Eton??

Also this kind of selectivity breeds people with a false concept of the realities of the world, like princes who aren't allowed to experience losing at a game, or not so long ago had to have someone else take their punishments.

Since Eton is where most of our Government Ministers were educated, these are people raised with not the least comprehension of the realities of the world.

No wonder they are making such an all time mess over benefits and disability. They are clearly the last people who should ever be given power in the modern age.

Longman I love the stuff you dig up and your perspective on it.  Keep up the good work.

Yes, regarding buildings and disabled access, surely if the government can make it law on businesses to provide things like accessible ramps then schools ought to have to do the same, private or not.  I guess they can get away with listed building status or something similar to avoid it, being posh old buildings 'n all.

I agree with you regarding the "few" comment - smacks of being proud that they have such a low percentage of deficient pupils doesn't it.

How many disabled policitians are there, especially in conservatives...

How is it, that the Government can have a law on inclusion but then exclude certain bodies from having to follow it?

Just to add to the perspective, figures I've found for England can be as high as 20% of pupils with some form of special needs.

So some public schools are rather good at turning special needs puplis away.