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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
