"autism support" is a waste of taxpayer's money

Post Reply New Topic

During my time at school I was statemented on various occasions pressured into accepting "interventions", all of it at massive expense to the taxpayer, and none of it helped me at all. Has anyone else had similar experiences?

yes, during my elemantry school time, i was forced to be with an aid,it was humiliating and did not helped me.

in isra-HELL there is an organised autism intervention program who obviosly not helping autistics ,only small number of parents of severly autistic children are truely enjoy that support, now i had to options,live with fully humiliating specsial adication school and aggressive therapies or live witout any support, which i choose to do.
its hard but i had managed to live normally without support and excel in math,robotics and computer engeeniring so it is best to who can to live without support to do it

I support me. Because I am. It would probably be in the best interest of yourself, and others to get support from someone like you. Because they can relate. What is going on is about as relative as a duck teaching a chicken how to fly.

I can think of many more groups who are a waste of taxpayers money... Australia indigenous population for one the money pit no one talks about. With rights and recognition comes responsibility and this should to apply to all people.

If the first poster is from the UK, the statement legally forces the school to help you in the ways set out, and it can be used against them, especially if you have pushy parents (like I did). And the idea is that if nothing in your statement is helping you, it should be changed so that it does...

It also gets you towards the top of admissions criteria when moving schools which is always good...

Support only works if the people providing it know what they are doing, and are willing to listen to the person being supported and to people who care for (as in give a crap about, not as in provide caregiving for) that person. People who are willing to shitcan black-box behaviorism, and understand that they are working with a person, an individual, not a disease.

Otherwise, "support" isn't support. It's "management." And it's beyond pointless, beyond wasteful-- it's destructive.

Well said BuyerBeware. There is a world of difference between "support" which is really management (social control) - ie a relationship of unequal power skewed toward benefiting the provider - and genuine support (validation, encouragement, getting alongside the supported person as an individual, recognising strengths, respecting uniqueness, supporting aspiration..).

The most important questions about support arrangements may be:

who benefits?
how do they benefit?
If both, how equal are those benefits?
what are the stated goals of the helper?
are these goals supported by the helped person?
how does the support offered relate to the stated goals?

Support based on disability thinking is a planet away from support based on possibility thinking.

So, basically, just because you do not feel that you got the help you needed you want to deny the possibility of others from getting help? Just because it didn't work out for you, you want to punish other people who have similar problems? A bit spiteful, eh?

I didn't take that as the OP's meaning, only that the interventions he was forced into were not helpful. OP: in what way weren't they helpful, what would have been helpful for you?

There are certainly inconsistencies in the quality of services offered to individuals, and education as a whole. There are also individual differences in terms of who benefits from which services. Ideally the system offers high quality education and services to people based on their individual needs, and according to the law, this is the obligation of schools and government. In reality there is a lot of variability here. For me, that comes together as an argument in favor of reform and quality control. Eliminating these services also eliminates the potential good that they do, which would be a shame.