Most of the time Conductive Education (CE) is taken to be a rehabilitation method, an intensive therapy for children with Cerebral Palsy. This is a popular misconception because of the lack of understanding of the work of early practitioners and the dearth of appropriate research methodologies to approach the system as a whole since. Although that numerous papers were published in order to introduce and explain CE, the “scientific” acknowledgement was not forthcoming.
In the early 1970’s, the first interpreters of Conductive Education in the UK, such as Ester Cotton, Karel and Bertha Bobath and James Loring, viewed it as a therapeutic treatment method. Griffits (1988) also described conductive education as a therapy which helped people to overcome different dysfunctions and achieve orthofunction, i.e. functioning normally in society without the use of aids or wheelchairs. This was not a true representation of Conductive Education. Brown and Mikula-Toth (1997) disagree with his description and take the view that it would be impossible to set out with this aim as the large majority of people would never achieve it. They expressed that Conductive Education is based on setting realistic goals, not idealistic ones. Despite of Andrew Sutton’s et al numerous papers, presentations on CE Sophie Levitt (2004) still refers to Conductive Education as a treatment, therapy or group therapy in her fourth book ‘Treatment of CP and Motor Delay’.
“Lack of an articulate account of conductive pedagogy from an original Hungarian source has been a major problem in the spread of Conductive Education across the world. Those involved in professional training have lacked an authoritative basic text and those who advocate Conductive Education, struggle to establish conductive centres and defend them, or simply look in from outside and try to understand this new approach to special education and rehabilitation, have all had their jobs made the harder for lack of a simple brief overview." (Maguire, Sutton, A. 2004 p.13).
As a result the ‘principles of Conductive Education’ continue to be misunderstood and misrepresented by proponents and opponents alike and gaining apparent legitimacy in the twenty-first century as they spread across the Internet.
"Over the years Conductive Education has generated a considerable literature written by mostly outsiders. The problem for those less than fully aware of the nature of conductive pedagogy is how to distinguish the nub of relevant, even excellent material within this ever-expanding corpus from the wrong, the ignorant and even the anti-conductive. Astonishingly, even after forty years of professional writing on Conductive Education – not least by those trying to practise it and to train others to do so – there are swathes of published materials, not just in English, which make no mention at all of conductive pedagogy as the vital factor in implementing an education that is conductive. Indeed, there remain many who appear altogether unaware that in seeking to implement an education without its pedagogy but, as one author noted, this is like attempting Hamlet without the Prince." (Maguire, Sutton, A. 2004 p.14).
References:
Griffits, M. and Clegg, M. (1988) Cerebral Palsy: Problems and Practice, Human Horizon Services. Souvenir Press, London
Brown, M. and Mikula-Toth, A. (1997) Adult Conductive Education A practical Guide. Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd
Levitt, S. (2004) Treatment of Cerebral Palsy and Motor Delay. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Maguire, G. and Sutton, A. (2004) Maria Hari on Conductive Pedagogy. The Foundation for Conductive education, Birmingham
The facts are:
In the early 1970’s, the first interpreters of Conductive Education in the UK, such as Ester Cotton, Karel and Bertha Bobath and James Loring, viewed it as a therapeutic treatment method. Griffits (1988) also described conductive education as a therapy which helped people to overcome different dysfunctions and achieve orthofunction, i.e. functioning normally in society without the use of aids or wheelchairs. This was not a true representation of Conductive Education. Brown and Mikula-Toth (1997) disagree with his description and take the view that it would be impossible to set out with this aim as the large majority of people would never achieve it. They expressed that Conductive Education is based on setting realistic goals, not idealistic ones. Despite of Andrew Sutton’s et al numerous papers, presentations on CE Sophie Levitt (2004) still refers to Conductive Education as a treatment, therapy or group therapy in her fourth book ‘Treatment of CP and Motor Delay’.
“Lack of an articulate account of conductive pedagogy from an original Hungarian source has been a major problem in the spread of Conductive Education across the world. Those involved in professional training have lacked an authoritative basic text and those who advocate Conductive Education, struggle to establish conductive centres and defend them, or simply look in from outside and try to understand this new approach to special education and rehabilitation, have all had their jobs made the harder for lack of a simple brief overview." (Maguire, Sutton, A. 2004 p.13).
As a result the ‘principles of Conductive Education’ continue to be misunderstood and misrepresented by proponents and opponents alike and gaining apparent legitimacy in the twenty-first century as they spread across the Internet.
"Over the years Conductive Education has generated a considerable literature written by mostly outsiders. The problem for those less than fully aware of the nature of conductive pedagogy is how to distinguish the nub of relevant, even excellent material within this ever-expanding corpus from the wrong, the ignorant and even the anti-conductive. Astonishingly, even after forty years of professional writing on Conductive Education – not least by those trying to practise it and to train others to do so – there are swathes of published materials, not just in English, which make no mention at all of conductive pedagogy as the vital factor in implementing an education that is conductive. Indeed, there remain many who appear altogether unaware that in seeking to implement an education without its pedagogy but, as one author noted, this is like attempting Hamlet without the Prince." (Maguire, Sutton, A. 2004 p.14).
References:
Griffits, M. and Clegg, M. (1988) Cerebral Palsy: Problems and Practice, Human Horizon Services. Souvenir Press, London
Brown, M. and Mikula-Toth, A. (1997) Adult Conductive Education A practical Guide. Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd
Levitt, S. (2004) Treatment of Cerebral Palsy and Motor Delay. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Maguire, G. and Sutton, A. (2004) Maria Hari on Conductive Pedagogy. The Foundation for Conductive education, Birmingham
The facts are:
• Conductive Education is continued to be an attractive option for the habilitation, rehabilitation of central nervous system damaged people and the service mostly used by the private sector in the world
• CE generally thought to be a sort of intensive physiotherapy-kind approach
• Conductive Education Teachers, Conductors are working mostly alongside with different trained professionals or not trained assistants
• In several cases CE is combined with different therapies, ideas, methods
• In some cases CE is integrated to local education services (!) – where Conductive Education Teachers are part of the teacher team however, they are mostly in teacher assistance or “therapist” status
• It is rear to find “conductor teams” functioning as it was thought by the originator of CE in and out of Hungary: each member of the team trained as CE professional
• The scientifically recognised world is hardly interested to explore CE
• The Alma Mater Peto Institute, Budapest had no plan and structure ( and maybe interest) to introduce and sell CE constructively to the rest of the World
• Conductive Education is in an agony of selling itself to the scientifically recognised world
• There are not enough CE training places
• There are not enough CE professionals and there are not enough Conductive Education Teachers
Well, I could continue it but I believe we should openly continue it together… what would you put next?
What are we up to?
No comments:
Post a Comment