I'm not disadvantaged because I was born in Harlesden.

I posted this 4 years ago, every word still true today.

“So here's the thing. As most of you know my business has been 'in education' for 12 months now. In that time I have come across a particular term over and over now. It's used widely, everywhere I go and it has unsettled me.

The term used: 'Disadvantaged children / young people.'

Now I'm sure you're aware that it's not cool to use term 'third world country' anymore and it's been replaced by 'developing country'. I'm not an expert in developing economies but that sounds like an improvement to me (even though there's probably a better term).

Anyhoo...

Why is it that the charity / social sector who work in that vertical have worked out that referring to continents and countries as third world is diss but education hasn't worked out that calling children and young people 'disadvantaged' isn't a diss.

I'm just getting warmed up, stay with me.

If you Google the term 'disadvantage children' this is what you get:

<<<<The "disadvantaged" is a generic term for individuals or groups of people who: Face special problems such as physical or mental disability. Lack money or economic support. Are politically deemed to be without sufficient power or other means of influence.>>>>

So let me get this straight. If someone has 'special problems' or 'politically' lack power and influence their 'disadvantaged'? You're kidding me right?

If you look at this at a macro (high) level then you might not think there's anything wrong with that definition. In fact you may be or know someone who is deemed 'disadvantaged' and agree with it too.

Here's the problem. The macro (high) level view doesn't help anyone.

Let me repeat that. Calling someone disadvantaged doesn't help them.

It doesn't help them.

It doesn't help them.

....Oh! Sorry, it does help them, because they're called disadvantaged it means there's funding available to help them.

Hmmmm....I wonder how effective that has been. Short term interventions haven't done what everyone thought they would.

Maybe I just don't know enough but can someone explain to me if the multi millions that have been spent on 'disadvantage' over the last few decades has provided a sufficient return or impact?

Or maybe you can tell if after the intervention are they now referred to advantaged or are they still disadvantaged?

If they're still disadvantaged explain to me what the point is exactly?

The last thing I want to say for now is this.

If you call someone stupid then inform / educate / up-skill them whatever and still refer to them as stupid - what do you think that does for them?

I'm admittedly a newbie in this sector which has its advantages and disadvantages....hold on there's that thinking again ...smdh.

But for those who have been working with children and young people in whatever regard I would like to put out a call to STOP the use of the term DISADVANTAGED. Replace it with 'FULL OR POTENTIAL' or something else, I'm sure there's a better term (like developing country' but for heavens sake stop calling them disadvantaged.

Let's see if that term lasts another 3 years.

Ok I lied I've got three more things to say.

1. I have never looked at the children and young people I have worked with as disadvantaged. Not once. All I have seen is possibility.

2. If you change how you look at something what you're looking at will change. If you truly want them to be advantaged, help them to find their advantage and refer to them accordingly.

3. Statistically my sisters and I would have been considered disadvantaged. My mother didn't see that. She saw potential.... I'll leave that story for another day but needless to say my sisters and I are far from disadvantaged.

I reject the fact that I was because I was born in Harlesden that I was disadvantaged. But unfortunately, many young people in Harlesden and areas just like it believe they are.

Remove the word, remove the inference, impact their reality, please.

Ultra and out. ??”