before we start this, a warning: on some social media platforms lately, there have been people promoting the use of BLUE pumpkins to signify that the holder is Autistic and therefore may not be dressed up, or may not respond, but to go on with it anyway.
Please, please, please do NOT use these. They just highlight vulnerable people and make them larger targets. Whether it be to bullies, or something MUCH worse.
I wholeheartedly believe it was meant to be a good thing, but it's just dangerous.
now, onto today's topic.
It was recently brought to my attention while going through what's left of the syllabus for my psychology A-level that we have to study Autism at one point in the 3rd paper.
That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that the singular mention of it in the entire syllabus is discussing Simon Baron-Cohen's Theory of Mind study, and being able to evaluate & point out strengths for it.
Common questions in the A-level paper look a lot like this:
this is a screenshot taken from past papers on the exam board's website for the exact specification I'm currently studying. More often than not, this topic comes up, and the question is almost always explaining strengths, not weaknesses.
This question is unfair to ask of Autistic people. Overwhelmingly, we have stated that we do not like Simon Baron-Cohen. Forgetting for a minute entirely that his ToM study has been disproven, hell it's been disproven BY HIM in the past, meaning it shouldn't be in any scientific study any more at all, Autistic people overwhelmingly don't like him or his theories.
I discussed these issues with my psychology teacher when I first noticed them, and I got lucky, because she's understanding, so I now have permission to act on showing why Baron-Cohen's study is wrong and invalid, but not everyone is, and I will still need to be able to answer this question in my exams at the end of the year.
here we come to my problem, the one time in the entire syllabus of the literal study of the mind that Autism is mentioned, it's from an ableist, and disproven standpoint, and the exam board knows this.
After the lesson, I emailed directly to the exam board about my concerns with their specification and its lack of updated information (and this has been an issue before, continuing to use terms such as the R-slur which is no longer considered even remotely acceptable, even in educational settings) and the response I got, other than being extremely generic, also made light of the fact that the exam board are very aware of the history of Baron-Cohen and his studies.
Instead of offering a solution or a promise to do better, they simply tried to point out to me that in ONE past paper, there was a question regarding weaknesses of Baron-Cohen's study (and let's not forget that their definition of "weakness" is very different to mine)
so what, exactly, is my point here?
The education system has wronged Autistic people in many different ways for decades. It's disgraceful that a system that now claims to be all-inclusive and has only been updated a few years back continues to include information that even the DSM-V has cut out since 2013.
the study of the mind fails to keep updated with what we know about the mind now. It's disgusting, and the fact that the exam boards are actively ignoring complaints regarding this and just sending out generic "we get your concerns" responses is worrying to me.
I have no idea how I will actually manage to write this in my exam when it comes to it, let alone not burn myself out or melt down during the lesson, but we gotta see I guess.
thank you all for sticking around and reading another month, again please remember my warning about the blue pumpkins, and I'll be back again whenever more news breaks or alternatively, this time next month.
- Josh.