HI,
I agree so much with your assessment!!!!!!!!!
In Unity,
Phyllis Rubenfeld
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, Laurence Bathurst wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Warning: This post uses the words 'needs' and 'carers' which may be
> considered offensive to some readers :-)
>
> On the education for children thread. I don't know much of the context of
> Warnock's comments but what i have gathered from the replies is, that the
> 'need' for education of children who have high support requirements is
> assumed to be valueless because of the chances that they may not be
> able to 'contribute financially to society' and thus the need is likened more
> to a sitting service or playgroup than meaningful education.
>
> If my reading is anywhere near correct then this is a problem in more
> than one way and raises many more questions regarding the 'work ethic'
> or 'work priveledge'.
>
> I couldn't agree more with the right for, and expectation of, education for
> all people. What I don't like is the tendency to use 'recreation' as a
> therapeutic tool that overrides the need for, and access to, education.
> Not just because this obscures or rather, denies educational outcomes but
> because it also denies the child the right to leisure/play that is meaningful.
> By attemting to address the rights to two spheres of life, this type of
> approach addresses neither.
>
> Personally and professionally I do not value education over leisure and I
> remain fearful that when the child's right to leisure/play (which is also
> protected by the International Charter of Human Rights) is pitted against
> the child's right to education that the former will always be seen as having
> less value. We will rally for the right to education but leisure and play isn't
> recognised by capitalist societies as 'of equal value'. Thus, the child loses
> in both areas rather than gaining in either area.
>
> The denial of leisure happens in exactly the same way that the denial of
> education occurs in certain circumstances, that is, by assuming to offer
> opportunities for and participation in education and leisure by offering
> 'pretend' programs. Just as education cannot be defined by 'being at
> school' or 'in school time', leisure/play cannot be defined by activity, time
> or place.
>
> The same issues arise with respite policy and services. What is
> supposed to be a carer support model of service turns into a recreation
> service which does not necessarily meet the needs of either the carer or
> the person with a disability. In trying to meet the needs of two groups, we
> often end up meeting neither. A recreation service funded to meet the
> needs of people with a disability (this is my opinion) should provide a
> service which aims to maximise opportunities for self-determination in
> leisure. A carer support service should aim to provide support to carers
> in a way which enhances positive family relationships.
>
> I believe it is possible to be able to provide education and leisure in a
> mutually complimentary way. I also believe that respite services can
> provide both carer support and leisure services. Its the rationalisation of
> those needs that sucks.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Laurence Bathurst
> School of Occupation and Leisure Sciences
> Faculty of Health Sciences
> University of Sydney
> P.O. Box 170
> Lidcombe NSW 2141
> Australia
>
> Phone: (62 1) 9351 9509
> Fax: (62 1) 9351 9166
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Please visit the School's interim web site at
> http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|