I have observed that sometimes a child's social needs (rights) are forgotten because of their disability. A seven-year-old boy with epilepsy has exactly the same needs as any other seven-year-old boy - he needs friends, confidence, fun and independence too. He does, however, need an additional set of tools to help meet these, which are universal needs.
I think a change in terminology would lead to a change in approach and consequently funding and practical provision, as it places the emphasis on the fact that all children have a primary (universal) set of needs. All will have a secondary (individual) set of needs, but some children also require a set of additional tools to help meet those needs.
A special needs child is not a separate category of child. I have heard it used too many times as a description - the 'special needs unit', or 'Oh, he's special needs'. We all have special educational needs co-ordinators.
But what does that phrase tell us? Nothing. They are administrators.
Worst still is that any child who is not keeping up with the prescriptive regime of the national curriculum, for whatever reason, is dubbed special needs, even if all that is required is time for that child to grow a little. As a result, only a narrow margin of slightly above-average children are regarded as 'normal'.
If this was thought about, then the fact that all children need to play and socialise, need to see a long-term future and need to see their part in their community, would become the focus. Then the question, 'What should we add to meet these primary and secondary needs?' would replace 'Why can't you meet my demands and how much will you cost me?'
Sally Brown. Norwich.
