This is everything that is wrong with the UK

SingleSue

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

Absolutely but I wonder if it has made a difference?

Today, how old are the first children to be diagnosed with one of these syndromes beginning with A? (Forgive my shorthand!) Has their diagnosis and treatment made a difference to their lives or are they unemployable and forced to claim benefits just as previously generations of undiagnosed/naughty children are?

I'm hoping these labels and treatments have helped the children but I do have a real fear that for many it's set them on a path to a self-limited life.

Well I can give you my experience of it....but have no idea if it is typical.

Middle son diagnosed with Aspergers at nearly 6 (in the summer holidays between reception and year 1) after various appointments, groups etc since the age of 2 and a half.

At age 8 and a half (year 3), he was permanently excluded from his school as they refused to treat him any differently to the other children and his behaviour had gone completely to pot...he was labelled unteachable. He then spent a year at home being privately tutored before gaining a place at a PRU, after initially being treated as a bad child rather than an autistic (where things had not improved), they finally realised that it was not working and changed tact (and listened to what was being said by his doctors and myself) and things improved.

He spent 4 terms at the PRU and returned to main stream school for year 6 where the same handling applied...by the end of that year he was awarded student of the year.

He is now in year 8 at High school where he is statemented and has support and his teachers describe him as a delight to teach, gifted in maths, a gentleman, a polite child, a sponge and has been awarded mathematician of the month out of his entire school year twice so far this year and they find it hard to believe that he had ever been excluded. Teachers at his old old school find it hard to believe that he has turned out so well...apparently they are still as bad at dealing with autistic children.

Youngest son - diagnosed as complex autistic later than his older brother despite being picked up as autistic like behaviour at age 16/17 months (ish) at one his brothers appointments. Started the same school as his brother (the one he was excluded from) which at the time because of the age difference, we didn't realise was the wrong thing to do. He had only started to verbalise shortly before starting school and because the school again ignored all the advice given to them, he completely shut down and withdrew back into his own little world. In desperation, I called the local school which had the special needs unit to see what their admittance criteria was and the next thing I knew, youngest had been taken off the school roll at his school and had no school to go to!

Much messing about with the education authority and he started at the unit towards the end of reception year, things improved, he came out of his little world and started to make progress. The progress continued at KS2 (one school for infants, one for junior for youngest) but he remained and could only cope with half days until part way through year 6.

He is now in year 7 in a main stream high school, something which myself and his doctors never thought possible...yes, he does have very high levels of help and is statemented and yes, he is not coping as well as he should be (he is shutting down a little and falling behind because of it again - he is a maths savant and at age 8 was working into the millions, at school he has stopped showing what he can do) but we are persevering in the hope that he will again find it in himself to cope again and we are working with various therapies to help him with this. If this fails, then he will have to go to the specialist autism school who assist him on an outreach basis (and where he spent two terms at junior level).

So I would say that identifying and helping/teaching autistic children to their needs is vitally important to their future productivity..without the specialised handling middle son had, he would still be classed as unteachable, would be getting excluded from one school after another and still be seen as just a naughty boy by others. And without the specialised handling youngest has had, he would still be in his own little world, cut off from everyone around him and without hope of ever joining normal society.

They both plan to go to university (they are certainly bright enough), how that will work in practice is a something we will have to deal with in future.

As I said, just my experience but diagnosis brought understanding (in the end!) and better handling and thus, a way for them both to improve and become more in this society.

carolt

ninky wrote: »

we had special needs kids at the schools i went to. not major physical disabilities. but we had a deaf kid (he could hear slightly with the aid of a special hearing aid) and we had educational special needs kids. they came to some of the same lessons but also had separate lessons.

i went to a state comprehensive. don't know if that made a difference.

I don't know your age, ninky - that may make a diference.

I'm sure you're right though - at secondary level, I went to a grammar school - unsurprisingly, not a lot of special needs kids there! I'm sure comprehensives must have been...um...more comprehensive in intake.

As for primary, I went to an ordinary state primary, but not a massive one, so there was maybe just less likelihood of there being a big range of kids? Maybe my experience wasn't typical...

That said, one of the things I remember about my primary - and which is why it now regularly gets SATs scores of 100% in all 3 subjects - is that it had a very can-do attitude; it worked on the admirable assumption that all kids, whether they were the brightest or dimmest in the class, could ahieve - and so they did. The dimmer ones were in no way labelled, and the same expectations existed across the board, with the result that everyone met them. Nowadays, I think there is a bit of a tendency to assume that kids are limited by the labels attached, or by the limitations suggested by things like SATs - ie that the 'average' child should achieve x. Resulting in many schools aiming at x, no matter what the students might really be capable of, if these slightly random goals weren't imposed.

I'm tired. Does that post make sense?

Edit - just read your post Sue. Clearly your sons being 'labelled' correctly rather than as just naughty, helped them immensely. I wonder about some of the children mentioned earlier in this and another thread, though, whose conditions are less clear-cut and who may be suffering at least as much due to bad parenting as due to innate conditions, where I suspect that being labelled would be less helpful (except to their parents in terms of claiming extra benefits ), and who might well benefit from a more can-do approach as at my primary school.