Encouraging and developing self-advocacy in our children and why the language we use matters

Image shows the sea in the background, with a close up seagull to the right with its beak wide open, below the beak and centred on the image white text reads 'How to talk so kids will learn how to speak up for themselves'

I really, really, really, don’t like the term ‘special needs’. I don’t particularly like the term ‘special educational needs’ much either, and can get a bit twitchy when the acronyms are used as prefixes, for example ‘SN child’ or ‘SEN child’. Urgh, it’s the ‘special’ bit I think. Scotland uses ‘additional support needs’ which grates less, and additional feels more neutral than special, but ASN is phonetically a bit too close to the old ESN acronym for ‘educationally sub-normal’, which was particularly awful.

‘Special needs’ is often used as a way to avoid using the words disabled and disability when describing, err, disabled children. Referring to adults as having, or being (WTF), ‘special needs’ seems reserved for those with learning/intellectual disabilities, when it’s typically used to pity and infantilise. The way that ‘special’ has become used as a way to insult and demean suggests to me it’s time for a re-think.

I’m aware that ‘special needs’ and ‘special educational needs’ are also used to describe children who aren’t disabled. It’s probably helpful to have an umbrella term for both transient and enduring support needs, particularly in schools. I think my preference would simply be ‘additional needs’ and/or ‘additional educational needs’. Both seem more accurate and less loaded and possibly harder to corrupt into terms of abuse. Maybe.

But, what bothers me most is that the language we use to describe disabled children, and to explain disability and support to disabled children, can make developing self-awareness and self-advocacy harder. I know that not all disabled children will be able to advocate for themselves, but for those that will, or those who might, I have some suggestions:

Use words that they’ll use as adults

Think about the words that adult services and adult self-advocates use. My son was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome when he was 6 years old, but we’ve interchangeably used Aspergers, autism, autistic and autism spectrum/autistic spectrum. I’d like to say this was a brilliant bit of forward-thinking, but it wasn’t, it was purely accidental and largely resulted from my own dithering around the person-first language I’d been trained in and the identity-first language that felt more personal and powerful. Alongside using the word disabled, and other terms that are specific to what disables him, he’s developed a broad and varied vocabulary, not just to choose for himself, but so that he isn’t stymied when he encounters someone who uses different terms.

My hope is that as he approaches adulthood he is reasonably well-equipped to engage with both professionals/service providers and with other autistic and disabled advocates and activists. This would be so much harder if he’d only heard us describe him as ‘being special’, having ‘special needs’ or if, like some parents, we’d never even told him his diagnosis.

Don’t minimise or rely on cutesy words

Words like autism and disability continue to scare some parents. It’s understandable given that the discourse of child development uses words and phrases like ‘risk’ and ‘red flag’ (and delay, disorder and failure) to describe and highlight anomalies (I view anomalies as a neutral term, different not less and all that). Parents, teachers and clinicians often skirt around language, avoiding those apparently scary words, and try to use what’s seen as more child-friendly language to describe children. For example (and this is not exhaustive!):

Aspie

Autie

Fidgety

Shy

Special

Highly sensitive

Indigo child

Twice exceptional

Sensitive

Quirky

Different

Fussy

Spectrummy

Wriggly

Slow

It’s not that we should never use these words, I just think they shouldn’t be the only words we use. It’s a bit like teaching children anatomical terms for their bodies, we need to provide children with the correct terms to describe themselves as well as their bodies.

(Also, try to avoid using words which suggest naughtiness or nastiness, even if you think they can’t hear or understand you)

Model advocacy

Try not to hide what you do to advocate for your child from your child. As far as is possible, involve and explain what you are doing and why, especially as your child gets older. Whether it’s sending an email to school, making an application for extra support, asking for help, or filling in a disability benefit claim, talk about it and involve your child, as one day they might or will need to do these things for themselves. Involving and engaging children in their support and reviews not only reminds professionals that there’s a real child involved, it also gives our children a chance to be a part of the process and learn new and useful skills.

If you are autistic/disabled yourself, or have any support needs, talk to your child about it. I am guilty of unintentionally hiding how hard some things are for me, but I’m trying to be more open and honest about what supports I’ve had that have helped me live, work and study better.

Encourage challenge

Don’t be a doormat, show your child that you will stand up for yours and theirs and other peoples rights. If they spot an injustice help them address it, write an email together or go and complain. Discuss what’s going on in the world and explore the sorts of things ordinary people have done and can do to make a difference.

Don’t force compliance

This is probably my biggest worry with many of the interventions used for autistic children. Whether it’s ABA or social stories or emotional literacy, or whatever school and professionals are offering, we need to check and double check that our children aren’t being taught or conditioned to ignore their own discomfort. Teaching and supporting self-advocacy and autonomy, and especially bodily autonomy, is vital. For more on autonomy, see this post.

Final words

The words we use to describe our children become the words they use to describe themselves. These words and the language we give our children to describe themselves matter. Hopefully, our children will be adults for far longer than they will have been children, so getting the foundations right, giving our children words and language and skills which empower them, which make them feel good about themselves, perhaps which enable them to find their community, and which help them self-advocate, matters.

Free speech, bridge-building and stuff

Image shows a a scene of purple leaved trees surrounding a wooden bridge, overlaid with white text reading 'Building bridges'

My last post ended with me asking how do we build bridges across the spectrum?

There is a slight irony in this as I am an inveterate bridge-burner in my personal life. When faced with hurdles in relationships, friendships and other social interactions, my instinctive reaction has always been to move on and leave it behind, never to return. I didn’t really understand why I did this until I started exploring my autisticness and it seem fairly obvious now that I just didn’t have the social and communication skills to repair and re-build those relationships.

I worry endlessly about screwing things up with other people if I do or say or think the ‘wrong thing’, whilst also being incredibly annoyed at myself for thinking like that. It’s so easy to get into situations where a minor disagreement escalates into major conflict as tensions rise and views become more polarised, particularly when strong opinions and personal experience are involved.

In truth, I don’t know if I’ll ever get better at fixing the broken bridges in my personal life, but I really do want to work towards building bridges across the various positions within the autistic and autism world. I believe that it is this conflict between positions and the challenging of orthodoxies which drives progress and improves knowledge.

I see this bridge building as a sort of Hegelian Dialectic process, from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, operating on a number of levels and platforms: from the challenges to orthodox autism science research posed by critical autism studies; to the way ABA and other ‘traditional’ autism interventions are questioned and criticised by autistic parents/activists; to challenging accepted terms and categories and beyond. We are in a period of conflict, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, for within the dialectic model it is this period of tensions and dialogue which provides the opportunity for building bridges, joining and working together.

Most people with a foot in the autism world, autistic or not, academic or not, parent or not, teacher or not, clinician or not, whatever and whoever, have a fundamental aim to make things better for autistic people. [Since this post was published I have been reminded* that there are rather too many scientists and researchers with little care for the ‘subjects’ of their research, for whom autism as a topic is of greater interest than autistic people. However, their detached interest doesn’t give them a free pass, we have to find ways to bridge this gap] What ‘making things better for autistic people’ means can vary dramatically, from those who want autistic people cured across a broad swathe of positions to those who see acceptance and societal adjustments as the key to improving autistic lives.

How do we reconcile dramatically different perspectives? Should we even try?

I think we should. But we have to start by understanding what brings people to positions we find uncomfortable, hurtful and sometimes quite horrific. And we also have to consider that sometimes new ideas can be considered hurtful to those who are invested in existing ideas and knowledge. We have to think carefully about how we present new stuff and criticise old stuff without it feeling like an attack on people’s sense of being.

I want to be absolutely clear that I don’t want to hear people saying horrible things about autistic people, I don’t want to be misrepresented and I don’t want autistic people to be the butt of jokes but I don’t think we can move forwards unless we engage with people who think and do and say these things. I certainly don’t think demonising people helps anyone, and I think we have to start with open and honest dialogue which means people need to be able to speak freely and be given the space and time to articulate their positions.

I never thought I’d be writing about free speech on this blog, and it’s not really something I think about very often. But a lot of my writing comes from my personal tensions, often, like my last blog, between the personal and pragmatic on the one hand and the intellectual and idealist on the other. The concept of free speech presents me with yet another tension: how do I reconcile my wish not to be hurt, misrepresented and laughed at with my belief that people should, as far as is possible within the confines of the law, be able to express their opinions and beliefs?

A twitter discussion this week has prompted me to explore this by working through my thoughts here on my blog. A bit risky, as I know it’s a controversial subject, but I’m doing it anyway. I want to make it clear that my perspectives often change and that what I say today I may disagree with at some later point. But right now, this is my position.

The twitter trouble arose as some autistic advocates/activists expressed their discomfort at the choice of keynote speakers for an autism research conference taking place in the UK later this year. Particular concerns were raised about the presence of an American autistic speaker and writer who has previously expressed views that some autistic people consider harmful to autistic well-being and antithetical to the aims of the neurodiversity movement.

The discussion moved on to broader themes of providing a platform to speakers who might present what are considered to be harmful views and opinions, and where do we draw the line. I realised that my ‘draw the line’ was perhaps a considerably higher bar than some others. Fundamentally, I believe that free speech is absolutely vital to democracy and progress. This does not mean I believe there should be no limits on what can be said, as I do not support the right to freedom of speech which incites crime, and I think balance is always preferable, but I do struggle with calls to suppress opinions which might be considered offensive or upsetting, just because they are offensive and upsetting.

The PARC PDA event I spoke at which led to my last blog post presents an interesting personal example. The other 2 speakers have expressed opinions, and published articles, which some in the PDA community consider to be hateful and harmful, yet there was little challenge from the non-PDA autistic community, indeed, many welcomed the debate. Should I have declined my invitation to share a platform with people who have been accused of hateful and harmful ideas? I don’t think so. Should we refrain from saying things because some people might find them hateful and harmful? I don’t think so to that too. Were those other 2 speakers hateful and harmful? No, they weren’t, they were challenging theories and practice on a theoretical level and that’s a key part of academic discourse and the production and evolution of knowledge.

In an academic context, such as the PARC PDA event, the ability to examine and interrogate what we know and what we think we know, without limits (but within the law of course) is vital, and should be expected. But what about other contexts?

Does my ‘draw the line’ line change according to context?

The more I think about this the more I realise that my line isn’t fixed, instead it can flex and adapt to context. Fundamentally, I support people’s right to think and express whatever they want (within the law), and I support people’s rights to hold views and offer opinions which I find abhorrent; but I also expect organisations which have specific aims and values to uphold those aims and values when, for example, putting on events and providing a platform.

My problem with the examples I’ve provided above isn’t so much that I don’t think they should be allowed to think, do and say what they did, because I support their right to do that. My problem is that what was said went against the stated aims and values of the organisations concerned.

The NAS claims to be the ‘leading UK charity for autistic people and their families’ which ‘campaign[s] for a better world for autistic people’. Kibo claim to want to ‘advocate for under-represented voices’ and ‘seek to broaden the social impact’ of their work. I believe that the NAS failed on both occasions to uphold their own values by providing a platform for speakers whose content most certainly did not contribute to a better world for autistic people, and that Kibo’s failure to consult and involve autistic mothers resulted in the very opposite of advocating for and amplifying under-represented voices.

But how do I square my doublethink? Can I really uphold free speech whilst also wanting some context-specific restrictions?

I think I can.

I believe that academic and research events, along with other events whose purpose is to encourage critical thinking and dialogue, must be able to present wide-ranging perspectives, and here my ‘draw the line’ is at its most liberal. Our universities and research bodies must have the freedom to push the bounds of knowledge, and sometimes this will be uncomfortable. But even uncomfortable material can and should be explored and disseminated to high ethical standards, it just takes some effort.

Events like NAS conferences, which have a broad focus and are often aimed at both specialists and non-specialists seeking ways to improve understanding and practice, need to consider more carefully how speakers’ material supports the organisation’s aims and values. Where a controversial speaker is booked, and controversy should not be seen as automatically bad, consideration should be given to how they present their material, perhaps instead of giving keynotes they could be included as part of a balanced panel presentation with more time available for discussion. Autistic people are often vulnerable and it is important that the ‘UK’s leading autism charity’ does not promote views which contradict and undermine its stated aims.

In many ways, fictional representations should have the most freedom to explore complex, challenging and controversial topics and ideas, but this can be problematic when material is presented as a representation of a marginalised social group. Fiction can be incredibly powerful and reach people in ways that other means cannot, and fictional characters often have a lasting impact that real-life descriptions and accounts do not. It’s not hard to see the impact of Rainman on popular notions of autism, how many of us have been asked what our own or our child’s savant skill is? My issue with Kibo was less about their poor characterisation and more about the hypocrisy of claiming to be socially responsible and representative, claims which added weight to the authenticity of the character.

What on earth does free speech have to do with building bridges?

We can’t even begin to build bridges between disparate viewpoints if we can’t talk openly and honestly about our positions. If people hold back for fear of upsetting or offending those with other perspectives the bridges will be built on shaky foundations and won’t last. We have to start from a position of laying our cards on the table and working out our shared goals. We all want to improve the lives of autistic people and that’s a bloody good place to start.

* thank you to Caroline Hearst for suggesting improvements to this post

How not to do an autism conference


Reflections on the NAS Autism and Mental Health conference 2017

It’s now two days since I attended the National Autistic Society’s ‘Autism and Mental Health’ conference at the Hilton in Reading. The event was attended by around 400 people and starred Tony Attwood and Wenn Lawson alongside other speakers. I was really looking forward to learning more about autistic mental health, but came away disappointed on many levels. Here’s why:

The venue was easy to get to and I arrived early as the pre-conference documentation indicated that parking was limited and that the alternative was parking further away and getting a bus. I struggle to use buses, they make me very anxious and to get through the day I needed to do as much as possible to reduce the avoidable anxieties.

  • Please consider using venues with sufficient parking.

The conference was held on the ground floor of the hotel, but it was poorly laid out and with insufficient signage. The bulk of the space was shared with other hotel users and it was not clear how to use the space. Hot drink preparation areas were at one end of a vast reception area and the only available seating was in the hotel bar at the other end.

  • Please consider providing layout plans.
  • Please consider delegates who have mobility and coordination difficulties.

Toilets, drinks and food all resulted in huge queues. Some queuing is inevitable at large events but this was unacceptable. The lunch queues were ridiculous and completely took over the space, making it easy to become overwhelmed and trapped. I suspected this might happen and got to lunch early, but was disappointed again at lack of signposting/labelling. It wasn’t clear what was available as food was spread across two spaces. Sandwiches were not labelled and many contained unidentified beige lumps in unidentified beige gloop. I was glad I’d brought snacks with me.

  • Please consider an alternative quiet area for lunch for your autistic/disabled delegates.
  • Please provide clear instructions about food arrangements. Providing a menu in advance would be helpful so we know what to expect.
  • Please provide food near the seating area, ideally with proper height dining tables, to support delegates with mobility and coordination difficulties.
  • Please choose a venue with more toilets and lunch logistics.

In the main conference room seats were tightly packed and with little space. Like many autistic people, I struggle with proximity to other people, have a need to move/fidget and often need to leave mid-way for the toilet, for some space, a break and to unwind for a bit before returning. I did ask to sit at the back near the door when I arrived, but having to explain a need for a particular seat (or any other adjustment) in front of others is never very dignified. I also had no way of reserving a suitable seat and struggled in later sessions to find suitable space.

  • Please consider creating priority seating for autistic/disabled delegates to meet our needs.

I was astonished that the NAS staff used a bell to encourage everyone to move onto the next session. It’s Autism 101 that many of us have sensory sensitivities so this was horrific, it was only years of conditioning that stopped me covering my ears and swearing at the bell-ringer. The organisers knew that there were autistic delegates (and at least one autistic speaker), but did this anyway. It was shockingly insensitive and very poor modelling of good practice… As always at these events, I was surprised how many delegates were heavily perfumed and I do hope they refrain from this in their day jobs.

  • Please consider your delegates’ sensory issues and please ask your non-autistic delegates to respect this too.

There was a quiet room provided which I eventually found, and while it was useful while I had it to myself, there were no guidelines on how to use it when sharing the space. I didn’t know if quiet meant silent, whether it was ok to to eat or drink in there, if ignoring other people in there was expected or rude. I abandoned it when the ambiguity made it more stressful being there than not.

  • Please provide some guidance on the use of the quiet room.

Providing a quiet room is not enough to ameliorate the challenges of the conference for autistic/disabled delegates. More thought needs to go into making the whole event inclusive and making adjustments and supports intrinsic. The NAS should be leading the field in this, modelling good autism practice in everything it does.

  • Please seek guidance from autistic conference speakers and delegates on how to make the whole experience better for us. The conference details listed autistic people among those who should attend, please make it easier for us to do this.

A woman next to me was struggling to hear a speaker (as was I but as usual I thought it was just me!) and asked for the sound to be adjusted/raised. The tech guy’s response was along the lines of “there’s nothing I can do, I can hear it fine”. This is very poor practice, and exactly the sort of thing many disabled people experience in day to day life. There may well not have been anything he could do, but his blasé response to our difficulties was not in the spirit of inclusion.

  • Please ask conference staff not to dismiss delegate requests.

I was disappointed that there weren’t more autistic speakers, I believe that Wenn Lawson was the only autistic speaker. It would have been helpful to have some more personal experiences, especially as many in the audience were, or were working with, parents of autistic children. As a parent of a child struggling with their mental health it is always helpful to hear from older autistics who have been through some of the very serious mental health problems being talked about. As parents we need to know it can get better. The day also seemed to largely focus on autistic people without intellectual/language disabilities, this wasn’t made clear in the programme and was disappointing.

  • Please include more autistic speakers in your conferences.
  • Please don’t forget that autistic people with intellectual, cognitive and language difficulties also experience mental health problems.

The worst part of the day was Tony Attwood. I was so looking forward to hearing him speak. His books were instrumental in giving me the knowledge I needed to get my son assessed and diagnosed when it felt like nobody else believed me. Clearly he is very knowledgeable and has a good understanding of the Asperger-type presentation of autism. But his talks were chock-full of jokes at our expense. It was very much an outsider looking in at the autistics and their funny little ways, oh how amusing we are, oh how the audience laughed at his quips about suicide, special interests, IQ, virginity and robots.

Attwood’s presentations came across as exploitative and offensive. He succeeded in othering autistic people and using us as the butt of his jokes. I now know that he has form for this and considers joking about autistic people a form of neurotypical social bonding, performing a sort of disparagement humour to bolster his material. It was like a trip in time back to the 70s where Alf Garnett discovers autism.

It really is not acceptable for a person in a position of power and influence to exploit a vulnerable and marginal group to raise laughs. It is surely unprofessional to talk about your clients and service users in such a disparaging way. I would guess that the majority of the audience were professionals. I would hate for any professional to talk about me or my son in this way.

I wonder if the time has come where people like Attwood, who were key figures in increasing understanding of the autism spectrum, but who are not autistic, need to step aside, accept their success, but let us speak for ourselves. There are autistic psychologists, researchers and writers (and many other things besides) who should be promoted and platformed. If we can say it for ourselves we do not need a neurotypical to say it for us.

  • Please produce some guidance for your speakers about respecting the subjects of their material.
  • Please don’t book speakers who mock and ridicule autistic people.
  • Please let us speak for ourselves when we can. If you are booking a big name speaker to attract participants let us share the platform.

To end, I think the NAS do some fantastic work, but it feels like there’s a disconnect between the different parts. The conference team need to take on board the work of the campaigning team. The NAS is the biggest autism charity in the UK and it needs to show everyone else how to get things right. Whether it’s training, supporting, housing or holding events for and about autistic people, it needs to demonstrate best practice.

I would like to thank Lucy Sanctuary for her fantastic talk about the benefits of speech and language therapy for mental health difficulties. Thanks also to her daughter who spoke to us via a film clip.

Please read my next post to see the reply from the NAS 🙂

A little bit autistic?

The UK’s Channel 4 is currently promoting its upcoming series ‘How autistic are you?’ [edit: link no longer works]. The blurb asks if you “think you might be autistic?” as a precursor to a whistle-stop tour of reasons you might indeed be autistic: 

“Struggle with social interaction, maintaining eye contact, or understanding the expressions and gestures of those around you? Do you have difficulty understanding other people’s feelings and managing your own? Or perhaps bright, loud or crowded places make you anxious?”


This isn’t helpful.

  • When free to create our own spaces for social interaction we form strong bonds and lasting relationships.
  • I have heard of too many children and adults refused assessment or diagnosis because they can do eye contact.
  • We are empathetic of others, we just might need them to communicate in a way we understand.
  • We often know exactly what to do to manage our own feelings, it’s just that external expectations often lead to us ignoring our own feelings, because ‘other people don’t feel like that’ so we must be wrong.
  • We can also be hyposensitive and crave loud, bright and busy (or have a perfectly well-calibrated sensory system).

Apparently the series intends to demystify autism. I’m really not so sure it’s going to do a very good job of it. The above paragraph ends with this gem:

“Theory and research suggest that autism is a spectrum, with autistic traits distributed along a spectrum in the general population. This means, to a certain extent, that everyone has some degree of autistic traits.”


This theory, that the population ranges from thoroughly-not-autistic-in-any-way-at-all along a straight line through to extremely-very-autistic-in-every-way-possible at the other end, is a fundamental part of Simon Baron-Cohen’s contribution to autism theory, which also includes how we lack empathy (err, nope) and how autism comes from an extreme male brain (err, nope, again).

The series will apparently “feature leading experts and people from the autistic community”. Experts and autistic people. Not autistic experts. Experts and autistic people. Nuff said.

Having preambled for longer than planned, I’m going to return to my title. Is everyone really a little bit autistic? I don’t think so. Does having an autistic trait or two mean you’re a little bit autistic? No, it just means you’re human. Autistic traits are human traits, for us they’re just in a different constellation.

  • If I tell you I wear reading glasses, would you say I was a little bit blind?
  • If I tell you I have a headache, would you say I was having a little bit of a migraine?
  • If I tell you I was a bit sad, would you say I was being a little bit clinically depressed?
  • If I tell you I sprained my ankle, would you say I was a little bit paralysed?
  • If I tell you I am unable to read a foreign text (whilst being perfectly capable of reading in my usual language), would you say I was a little bit illiterate?
  • If I said I didn’t like peas, would you say I had a little bit of an eating disorder?

I could go on. The point isn’t that being autistic is so awful that it’s worse than everything else, the point is that suggesting everyone is a little bit autistic trivialises and vanishes the experiences (good and bad) and the support needs of autistic people.

shit I learned at #speakersday

I don’t usually swear in posts, but I do swear a lot when I speak, and I am writing this while I recover from a long drive, a couple of nights away from home and lots and lots of peopling, meaning my ability to put words together is a bit challenged, so I need to make full use of whatever vocabulary I can find. Yesterday I attended the National Autistic Society’s ‘Public speaking for autistic people’ course in Wrexham, 210 miles from home. It was brilliant and illuminating and I learned shitloads of stuff.

I learned that I really really like driving on motorways, especially if I imagine that I am appearing in a Top Gear challenge. My friend @PdaSoapbox was travelling by train from the opposite direction, and we supported and encouraged each other by text throughout the journey (I only texted when I stopped for breaks, not when driving). She was largely unaware that she was part of my imaginary challenge, and I don’t think she’s a Top Gear fan… but it made me laugh to myself as I drove, because, contrary to the stereotypes, us autistic people can imagine and we do do humour.

I learned that being drawn towards the written word is a pain in the arse when signs are bilingual. If there is written information within my field of vision I have to read it. It doesn’t matter what it is, I have to know what it says. This is fine with English language words, which I can scan and process quickly, but less so with Welsh. I have nothing against Wales or the Welsh language, but bilingual signs mean my brain tries to make sense of all the words, including the Welsh words, which I don’t have a hope in hell of decoding, but my brain has to give it a go just in case. I did not miss a turn until I crossed the border 😉

I learned that being among autistic women is perhaps the most empowering and comfortable place in the world to be. I have never felt so normal, so like other people, it was magical. Meeting people I’ve only ever interacted with on the internet in real life was like meeting up with the long lost friends I never knew I had.

I learned that friendships made online can be as strong, meaningful and real, and engender the same loyalties as those made in the ‘real world’.

I learned that I’m not the shy introvert I had always assumed myself to be. I haven’t been avoiding social interaction for most of a lifetime because I didn’t want to or didn’t need it. I’ve avoided it because it’s so hard when you don’t know and can’t follow the social rules of the majority neurotype. I actually love just chatting with people, singly and in groups, and yesterday I could do that without the complicated interchanges usually required. There were no raised eyebrows and affected manners, as people just did what they needed to do. Stripped bare of the tacit and often arbitrary rules of the typical social world, interaction became easy and natural. People and topics ebbed and flowed.

I learned that I am not able to easily switch between roles. As part of the day we had the opportunity to perform a brief presentation and receive feedback. I had not prepared one of my own as I knew it would make me more anxious on top of all the other anxieties. It’s not uncommon for me to make a decision about something without knowing why and then having my ‘Oh fuck, that’s why’ lightbulb moment later on. Partway through the morning yesterday I realised that my trepidation about doing a presentation was because of this struggle with switching between roles. To engage with the training and learn well, I needed to be in ‘listening and learning’ mode. To do a presentation I would need to be in ‘controlled and performing’ mode. There wasn’t time to switch roles and I knew as soon as the afternoon session began that I had made the right call, I was in no place to perform ‘speaker role’.

I learned more than I could have hoped to about public speaking. Sarah Hendrickx and the NAS training team should be commended for providing such a thoughtful and perfectly executed event.

Throughout my professional life I attended a lot of training, this may have been the first time I haven’t wanted a training day to end.

Thank you to everyone involved and everyone who attended.

What a day 🙂