Also half-finished is a  book I started ‘before the fire’ Trevor Royle’s “Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1638-1660”.

Nearly finished, though something quite else, is “The Hungry Cyclist: Pedalling The Americas In Search Of The Perfect Meal” by Tom Kevill-Davies.

One book I  bought just a few days ago and am now reading for the third time, although admittedly a rather slim volume, is “Last Year in Hong Kong:  Four presentations to the 7th World Congress on Conductive Education, Hong Kong, December 2010” by Andrew Sutton, with a Foreword by Ivan Su, Corporate Programme Coordinator at SAHK.

Here are four snippets on the theme of transformability:

“This ambitious [research] programme that I was following – part psychological, part pedagogical, part philosophical, - some of it practical, some academic – was directed to understanding and demonstrating the transformability of human beings as a product of their social experience”.  p.17

Makarenko – Vygotskii -  Luriya – Feuerstein – Zazzo and Wallon “…. all bore the same central message: the development of  human beings is not fixed, they are not destined to be as they are – they are all transformable.” p.18

[But] “…. there is no coherent concept of pedagogy, upbringing, education that is transformative”. p.18

[conductive education] “… demonstrating yet again that the development of human beings can be transformed by properly structured social intervention”. p.18

“Exposure to Conductive Education had introduced the notion that disabled children’s development can be transformed by disciplined, optimistic, determined and organised educational experiences, in the family and at home”. p.34

Highly recommended to anyone who cares about the future of conductive education wherever you are.

Footnote: on the day I sat down to write this post, DfE published data that, according to BBC News, showed that "Struggling pupils don't catch up". BBC reports:

Just one in 15 (6.5%) pupils starting secondary school in England "behind" for their age goes on to get five good GCSEs including English and maths, official data shows.

The government data published as part of secondary school league tables suggests the majority of schools are failing struggling pupils.

The Comments make depressing, and sometimes cheering, reading.  In the context of "transformability" make of it what you will. I know what I think.

"Data for Promotion. Engagement and Reporting" source Stanford Social Innovation Review.

"Many organizations use selected statistics, data, or other information in press releases and calls to action, but we may not look at those numbers or statistics as stories that compel us to share, respond, and take action."

"Expanding the Evidence Universe: Doing Better by Knowing More": A paper prepared for the 2011 Harold Richman Public Policy Symposium. "Salient point: there is valuable knowledge that is not absolutely certain knowledge.

By dint of a bit of digging around, I found a reference to it on a blog "Striving for Change" (which led me to a website for Strive Network:

Education is a lifelong experience that begins well before a child ever sets foot in a classroom and continues long past a cap and gown commencement.

What if we could support every one of our children, from cradle to career, to have the meaningful educational experience to which they are entitled? How great would our impact be?

I bookmarked that site because it looked interesting enough to return to.)

Anyway, back to expanding the evidence universe. You can find the paper in google docs or if it works I might be able to set up a link to a downloadable .pdf file as follows here: Download Expanding the Evidence Universe Dec 2011

"The idea that nothing is worth knowing unless you know it for certain has its place, but not when applied to complex social programs and policies.(i)  We can learn so much, including about program effectiveness, without insisting on absolute proof."

I like the sound of that enough to read the whole paper. You may have noticed the footnote number (i) at the end of the first sentence just quoted. The footnote reads:

"This is the idea that the late MIT organizational theorist Don Schön described as “epistemological nihilism in public affairs,” the view that nothing can be known because the certainty we demand is unattainable.

I can't help smiling at that, "epistemological nihilism in public affairs". One of the main reasons our Special Free School status (and by the Big Lottery before that) was turned down was because we could not evidence with sufficient certainty demand from parents. I always thought that if Steve Jobs had had to evidence demand for the iPad before he got Jonathan Ives to design it, two of my Grandchildren would never have found out that they couldn't live without it!

"Epistemological nihilism in public affairs"! What a phrase. I just love it!

PS No doubt someone will let me know if the links don't work.

-----------------

#CondEd is a twitter 'hashtag'

In yet another warning, researchers from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and the University of Southern Denmark predicted a “silent pandemic” of brain conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy and attention deficit disorders, identifying 202 substances known to poison the brain as “the tip of a very large iceberg”.

The whole article can be found in today's Daily Telegraph "Human bodies contain too many damaging chemicals".

Make what you will of it and of the reference to cerebral palsy. Googling "silent pandemic" + "Mount Sinai School of Medicine" seems to link back to work first reported in 2006. Adding "cerebral palsy" brings up a variety of years including links - like mine - to today's Daily Telegraph and similar articles. Maybe it's all just a re-hash of 'old news'? Still, the notion that the incidence of cerebral palsy could be increasing strikes me as worth checking out.

"Dear All

"Most of the Governors attended yesterday's production of 'Noah's Ark' and 'Songs from the Sound of Music'. We were as moved, amused and entertained as all the children's families who attended and so pleased to see the children's very obvious enjoyment in taking part. Many of the children have made really good progress since we last saw them in action. We would like to thank all the staff for giving us and them so much fun, only achieved by a great deal of dedication and loving hard work by them and the pupils.

"Can I also take this opportunity to thank the Parents of Paces, in particular Darrel and Jane Mettam, Jill Wimpenny and Stacey Mitchell. Yesterday you saw them organising the Grand Draw and selling the promotional goods - I have sent more than 100 cards this year, very proud that each one was designed by a Paces' pupil. Interestingly, I am receiving many too from friends who attended the Garden Party and also bought some! The PoP team has done an amazing job all year; they have raised a great deal of money which has helped complete the new classrooms and will help further improvements to the school's facilities; Jill takes the lead on organising the excellent termly Newsletter which is so professional and interesting; Jane organises the photographs each year, and so on. Attending PoP's monthly meetings, or asking to be mailed with information so you too can contribute ideas and help, is a way of being involved and showing your appreciation. Why not come along and join us - Darrel will circulate everyone with the date and time of the next meeting.

"Well done everyone, and a very happy Christmas to you all.

"Christine Goldsack, Chair of Paces' Governing Body."

"[Conductive education's] objective is to enable physically and multi-disabled individuals to actively participate in society by means of intensive and systematic training and practice."

Let's just agree, for the sake of argument and for the moment, that the objective of education for all of us is that we "actively paricipate in society". I clearly recall teachers at the grammar school I attended in the 1950s and 60s having much the same aspiration for us pupils.

My problem with what is written here is that I baulk at the notion that there is a group of pupils, children if you wish, whose education or upbringing - the very processes of becoming active participants in society - is best defined or achieved "by means of intensive and systematic training and practice".

My problem is that I baulk at the notion that the distinctive feature of conductive education, the essence of what sets apart what we do from what others do whose objective is also that individuals become active particpants in society (a claim I suspect most teachers in mainsttream schools would make), is that we do so by "by means of intensive and systematic training and practice".

As if, in both instances, that is all there is to it. How intensive is "intensive"? How systematic is "systematic"? How much more "training", how much more "practice" is necessary should the conductor or child falter? Is that it, then, in a nutshell? Intensive, systematic training and practice?

When the videomaker asks me what is different, what is special, about conductive education, my answer should be that we are more "intensive and systematic" than any other form of pedagogy or upbringing?

Dr Hari wrote: "Conductive education enables individuals to build up a new quality of life and a new quality of intention to achieve higher levels of co-ordination and some increase in coherence and power .... For the everyday course of life this means that the individual is able to establish aims (intentions), to retain them, to monitor progress towards them, to resist failure and to overcome obstacles to their achievement."

Perhaps I just do not believe or accept that it is possible to "build up a new quality of life and a new quality of intention" through "intensive and systematic training and practice" alone.  Alone? Then there is something else involved? For me, absolutely so. For me, anyone who thinks that what is distinctive, different, specific, about conductive education is that it achieves what it achieves through ""intensive and systematic training and practice", quite simply misses the point. Conductive education is so much more.

-----------------

See further "We Are Not Alone" by Ray Kohn for e-Conduction

Imagine. On the table in front of you is a Button. Beside it is a Cheque, made out to you, for the sum of £1,000,000 sterling.

Now your opinion: you have two options and I invite you to select just one of the options.

Option A grants you a preference of the Button or the Cheque.

Option B grants you a choice of the Button or the Cheque.

Would I be correct in assuming that you would select Option B? That, in your opinion a “Choice” is to be preferred to a “Preference”?  Would I also be correct if I presumed your agreement that “Choice” and “Preference” are entirely different, separate notions? Not to the Department of Education (DfE), they are not.

Consider “Free Schools in 2013”, the DfE’s guidance for those proposing to open a Special Free School in 2013: “Things to know before you start”. 

Paragraph 1.1 asserts “… We want parents to have a choice of more good schools …”.  Paragraph 1.2 expands “The Free Schools Programme is helping us realise this vision …. By introducing increased competition, innovation and parental choice, we aim to raise standards across the school system.”

You may be ahead of me, and guessing what is coming next.

Paragraph 1.3 is a little longer: “Special Free Schools are part of the Free Schools programme ….  Parents of children with special educational needs (SEN) will have a choice of which school they want their child to attend.”

Actually, it does not say that.  In italics is what those like you and I who understand the difference between “choice” and “preference” might have expected having read Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2. What, however, Paragraph 1.3 does say is “Parents of children with special educational needs (SEN) can make representations about which school they want their child to attend.” In other words, parents can express a preference not a choice.  Just in case you have any doubt as to who will really exercise choice, paragraph 1.3 concludes “For children with SEN, the introduction of special Free Schools will help to ensure …. that local authorities have more choice about which special provision is suitable for pupils.”

I invite you to consider how, as far as parental choice is concerned, this differs from the situation now? .

This is no an aberration. This conflation of meaning of the words “choice” and “preference” runs through the SEN Green Paper “Support and Aspiration”. Consider this sentence from the Foreword: “We want to give parents more control by …. ensuring more choice  by allowing parents to name in their child’s plan, a preference for any state-funded school.”   Control, choice, preference. Between the Button and the Cheque, do you want “Choice” or “Preference”?  (Notice the word “Control”. Chapter 2 is headed “Giving Parents Control”). 

Paragraphs 2.44-2.54 are entitled, “A Clear Choice of School”. 

If this is heading where you and I now strongly suspect it is, “Choice” is anything but “Clear”. Sure enough, Paragraph 2.46 begins boldly and, one would otherwise have thought, "clearly" enough: “There should be a real choice for parents …. We believe that real choice for parents requires a diverse and dynamic school system … [with] … the autonomy and flexibility to respond effectively to parental choice; parents to be able to express a preference for a placement in any state-funded school ….”

You do not, I feel sure, need me to point out to you once more, the conflation of the words “choice” and “preference” into one muddled meaning. 

What if the title, clearly and honestly had been  “A Clear Preference of School”. What if the promise were that “There should be a real preference for parents ….”?  What if "choice" were replaced in every instance by "preference". About as enticing as a button instead of a a million pounds.

Who writes this stuff?

"A placement at the National Institute of Conductive Education (NICE) in Birmingham for children with motor disorders is strongly preferred over mainstream or special schools by some parents, but it has been noted that this is usually refused following the current statementing process. Although funding constraints have been articulated, Angela Morgan, a Research Fellow at the Wolverhampton University Policy Research Institute, and Kevin Hogan, also at the University of Wolverhampton, contend in this article that other explanations are possible, as variability remains in placement decisions. The experiences of education administrators working within the special educational needs departments of local education authorities who make the ultimate decision regarding school placement have hitherto been unexplored. This study offers findings from an exploratory qualitative study, which suggests that administrators are working from disparate understandings of conductive education within an arena fraught with conflict. Recommendations derived from the study include further in-service training for education administrators and prior training for individuals seeking a career in education administration to enhance collaborative working partnerships between administrators and parents."

This morning DfE wrote to say that Paces was not being invited to take our Special Free School application to the final, Pre-Opening, stage for September 2012 .

This is a huge disappointment; for us at Paces, of course, but also, perhaps just a little, for the future of conductive education in England, and as well, maybe, as those children with cerebral palsy across South Yorkshire and beyond and their families, who will have to wait a while longer.

The reasons given in the letter were several and various. Over the telephone, the several reasons reduced to two: we had not successfully evidenced demand and assessors could not clearly determine value-for-money from the information we had supplied. I would comment, countering both, but do not yet feel so inclined - certainly not now. We shall, nevertheless, reflect on the reasons and learn lessons from them; we shall, in all probability, apply again next year.

By then, perhaps, DfE will have resolved issues around funding, assessment and decisions on placement, which are so important for parents and for those who would in that case, and no longer detered by the complexities and uncertainties, bring forward more proposals for special free schools. By then, too, the Government's SEN Green Paper ("consultation") should have progressed to White Paper ("planned legislation") - with some of the inherent contradictions sorted out.

For now, my grateful thanks to everyone who supported Paces in our application and wished us well. I am sorry we could not have 'come home with the gold medal' as the Olympians say. Maybe next year!