Is there a better question?
This is how I addressed this question four years ago:
My vague impression is that things might be a little less black and white now than they were back then but I do not know how general this may be. The expression seemed to have arise from the Hungarian word tiszta which means 'clean', 'pure', 'undiluted', 'plain', 'unalloyed', etc. One also hears or reads in English the notion of 'pure Conductive Education'.
As the range of activities spoken of as Conductive Education grows ever wider, in terms of training programmes and models of service-provision, there seems little recorded discussion of questions such as these:
- What is 'clean' or 'pure' conductive pedagogy'?
- Is this the same as what in Germany some people refer to Petð-pur?
- Is its opposite: 'dirty', 'impure', 'diluted' 'alloyed'...?
- Does one ever see explicit criteria for 'pure conductive pedagogy', or even 'Pure Pető'?
- Historically and substantively, is tiszta konduktiv pedagógia a tenable construct?
- Or is it just a smokescreen or a slogan – and if so, for what?
- What sort of problems does all this cause?
- And what is wrong with alloys anyway?
Perhaps there are different, better questions to be asked in 2017. What are they?