Reviews for Education and Social Progress

The average rating for Education and Social Progress based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-03-29 00:00:00 Marcus Arianas Neurodiversity is a label for the concept that there is not merely one way of thinking but many. This doesn't mean variation of opinion. It means fundamental variation in mode of thought and processing of information that does not constitute an intellectual impairment. Things covered by this umbrella term include amongst others: Dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, AD(H)D and autism/Asperger's Syndrome. The term originally arose within the online autism/Asperger's Syndrome (AS henceforth) community. This book represents an excellent introduction to its topic. Whilst some of it is UK specific, most of the material applies across national boundaries. The UK-specific material is about the law and the existing specific support services. The remainder can be imported to any country where there is willingness to adapt within the Higher Education sector (HEIs henceforth). Key concepts are the medical vs. social models of disability, the responsibility on institutions to pro-actively adapt to the needs of disabled students and adoption of a constructive culture amongst the lecturing staff and the consequent need for education of the same. Medical vs Social Model: The medical model is that there is something wrong with the disabled person and this should be fixed where possible. The social model is that disability arises because of the barriers put in place by society that prevent people who are different from that society's concept of "normal" from fully participating in society. These concepts are generally taken as being fundamentally in conflict. An example from outside neurodiversity is the Deaf community which tends to believe that its culture is under threat of extinction from modern medicine which is increasingly able to cure or mitigate severe forms of hearing impairment. Within neurodiversity the AS community is for the most part extremely hostile to the concept that the have a medical problem that is in need of a cure. The opposing forces are mainly the USA's medical insurance industry which cannot make money out of a condition that requires lifelong support and intervention and parents who "just want their child to be normal." These forces are so strong that AS has been removed from the latest edition of the USA's psychological diagnostic manual, the DSM V and many desperate parents subject their children to quack practioners' harmful and ineffective "cures." I do not believe that casting medical vs. social models of disability as complete polar opposites that necessarily must conflict is necessary or fully accurate. For instance many people with AD(H)D can and do benefit from drug therapies. It should be entirely down to the individual to decide whether to go down this road. The decision should be an informed one and social pressure to conform to standards of normality should not be a factor. On the other hand, "curing" AS means effectively destroying one personality and replacing it with another. I can't really see the distinction between this and murder. Pro-active adaptation to the needs of disabled students: This means that waiting for a student with a specific disability to rock up at an institution before considering what needs to be changed for them isn't good enough: best practice needs to be implemented across the board regardless of whether any specific disability is represented within the student body at any given time. This is a legal requirement for HEIs in the UK. This approach has enormous benefits for the affected students, who face less of a battle to get the adjustments they need and reduced institutional hostility towards them. Many of the adaptations are beneficial regarding more than one type of disability are incidentally beneficial to many students who aren't legally classified as disabled in any way. Staff attitude and awareness: without this, most of the necessary adaptations for neurodiversity simply are not possible, since the greatest need neurodiverse people have is to be treated with respect and understanding. Everything else follows from that - with relative ease if pro-active measures have been adopted by the institution. By contrast, attitudes that perceive neurodiversity as a bogus label for people who are stupid/badly behaved are guaranteed to prevent maximum achievement. It is strongly recommended that appraisal/promotion of staff be linked to engagement with appropriate training. The book itself is good, providing as much clarity as is possible in an area that remains fundamentally murky - definitions of many neurodiverse conditions remain varied and controvercial - and offering some insight into the problems these conditions can cause, especially in the context of HEIs. It mostly focuses on undergraduates but some space is given to postgraduate students. Occasionally it is vague or assumes knowledge. (I still don't know what "over-learning" is and I'm guessing what "multi-sensory learning is".) Most of the advice on best practice is hearteningly specific, though. The chapter on assistive technology is showing its age already. The book was published in 2007 and in the time since then smart phones have become ubiquitous and revolutionised this topic along with so much else. One enduring point raised, though, is that one person's necessary assistive technology is another person's useful but only socially requisite toy. (Pretty much all computer technology falls into this category.) This book is worth the time of anybody involved in education, giving or receiving, largely independently of at what level, and additionally to anybody interested in neurodiversity at all or disability generally.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-10-21 00:00:00 Karen Hoppers A must read for all school leaders looking to make change!