Tuesday, 21 February 2017


You couldn't make it up

University students who buy essays on line face fines and a criminal record under plans to punish plagiarism being considered by the [UK] government...

Now the Department of Education has announced it is consulting with universities over how to crack down on cheating students

The DfE is currently consulting on a number of proposals with higher education bodies, ranging from fines, academic blacklists, and even criminal records for students found submitting professionally-written essays...

The Quality Assurance Agency, the universities regulator, is consulting with the government and is pushing for new laws.

The new guidance is due to be implemented in September, in order to coincide with the beginning of the next academic year.

Plenty more on this:

I see here that a PhD thesis could set one back up to £6,750.

And I recall being told by Mária Hári that a long time ago, in Vienna, András Pető used to supplement his income by writing other people's theses. In that context at least, she did not seem to regard this as particularly reprehensible.


Yorke, H. (2017) University students could be fined or handed criminal records for plagiarised essays, new proposals suggest, Daily Telegraph, 21 February

Previously on Conductive World

Sutton, A. (2010) Plagiarism: big and small, Conductive World, 20 March

Sutton, A. (2012) What price plagiarism? Conductive World, 19 January

Monday, 20 February 2017


More on that lecture in Nottingham

Late last night Conductive World reported the online announcement of a lecture on 'The role of Conductive Education in an early years setting' by conductor Kirsten Bairstow-Robb. In less than twenty-four hours since then more than two-hundred people from around the world have linked to this blog posting, with an unknown number seeing the associated entry on Facebook:

The lecture is part of a series, 'SEN and Disabilities Seminar Series 2016/17':

open to all students and staff in the School of Education and staff in partner schools.

Admission is by ticket provided upon application and is free of cost. The lecture is preceded by refreshments. How very familiar it all seems, a traditional event such has been held in the UK's schools of ed. seemingly from time immemorial.

Why so interesting?

Semi-public lectures on aspects of Conductive Education are so rare nowadays. Why might this be? You can take your choice of suggested answers to that question – there's a PhD waiting to be done there. But of immediate note here is why this bald little report has attracted such rapid and widespread interest on line.

Is it something inherent in the particular topic that touches a button, early-age intervention? Or is it the medium, which could suggest an unsatisfied appetite for semi-public lectures/seminars on Conductive Education generally? Few of those who read about this on line will be able to get to suburban Nottingham that evening in March, but whatever has drawn their interest to this on line, one of the Comments on Facebook might speak for a quite general feeling:

Can you please send the materials of your lecture Kristen Bairstow-Robb or upload somewhere? ... I think others would be interested too.

Sunday, 19 February 2017


At Nottingham University

SEN and Disabilities Seminar Series 2016/17

The role of Conductive Education
in an early years setting

Kirsten Bairstow-Robb
School for Parents


Wednesday, 15 March, 2017

(preceded by refreshments)

Conductive education is a holistic approach to education which seeks to teach individuals with brain injuries how to connect and engage with the world around them. this seminar will look at some of the effects of brain injuries on learning and will focus on how the parents of children with brain injuries can be involved in their child’s development. in addition the session will look at some of the tools used in our pre-school setting to promote and enhance learning.

Admission free, by ticket
16 tickets remaining

The lecture series

Perhaps these are not public lectures, open to all:


Those interested in attending will have to enquire via the above link.

Saturday, 18 February 2017


On Facebook

Touching briefly upon some important aspects of the state of Conduction Education, so far and to come, and leaving plenty yet to say:

These Comments have arisen from two postings on Conductive World:

What has been said in these Comments inevitably raises further questions that are important in their own right.

Please do comment further...

Friday, 17 February 2017


Another hole in the wall

One pervasive and longstanding problem

Yesterday I posted an item on Conductive World, concerned with the problem of Conductive Education's maintaining core features when its practice is embedded in contrary and sometimes actively inimical social contexts.

I was alluding to a problem that I have known in reality since the mid-eighties (though even before then it took small imagination to see it coming!) From that outset this conflict of paradigms was often played out pretty nastily (no surprise here, either). All these years later, I have no means of measuring whether things are better or worse.

I regard there still to be fundamental problems in any attempt to introduce a different paradigm into an already established (and entrenched) system of provision. I suspect that this philosophical (or ideological) transfer to be superordinate to a somewhat lower level of problems, those relating to national or 'cultural' differences – though in Conductive Education such comment as there is on this question rarely rises above this level (and is rarely described in concrete terms). It goes without saying that in such situations the possibility of misunderstanding, confusion, conflict, etc. is not necessarily restricted to players within the little world of Conductive Education.

None of this means that steps may not be necessary to resolve such specific problems as arise – or indeed that, either by design or higgledy-piggledy, a general approach or strategy should not appear. Two differing paths were suggested in yesterday's posting:
  • the established thought community, the existing hegemony, might give way and incorporate fundamental tenets of the new arrival, or
  • the new arrival might begin absorbing fundamental aspects of both theory and practice from existing ways of thinking and doing, and be slowly buried in the very soil in which it wants to take root.
I made no suggestion what to do about this situation, simply asking whether people might have ideas of how to proceed along some third way.

This is an obscure methodological question, no doubt, and though I have been trying to express it clearly for years, I am very aware that I may still not do so..

So yesterday, inevitably, I was misunderstood.

A comment on Facebook

Each time that I post on Conductive World (the blog) I notify something of the content of the new posting on Conductive World (the Facebook page), to attract the attention of some of those who might otherwise miss it. Quite often such Facebook entries generate discussion in their own right (something that the actual blog posting rarely does nowadays (why this is I do not know).

Among yesterday's Shares and the Likes on Facebook, a respondent posted something longer, a personal cri de cœur about internecine behaviour that she has met among conductors. She apologised that she might have misunderstood my posting (in return I should apologise back that I may have been less than clear!). She wrote that she had been deeply affected by sniping and negativity, sufficient to withdraw almost completely from her previous contribution to the public sphere.

I know her, she is no shrinking violet but a bold, brave lady, and far from being the only such to have reported similar mobbing and bullying over the years by conductor no-accounts, leading to a similar wish to have no more to do to with public life of Conductive Education. Read what she says in full, for yourself:

Not uniquely, in this instance the behaviour reported has come from a particular group within CE, to be blunt from some of the large number of conductors trained at the Pető Institute (now PAF).For her part she had been trained in the UK, through the FCE. Granting that my own history precludes me from a wholly impartial opinion on what has been reported here, I would rush to asset that this is far from a universal behaviour in this population. I have heard of it, however, from different parts of the world and from conductors of every level of experience – and it can be 'institutional' as well as individual.

My correspondent went on to suggest that such attitudes and behaviour are a factor  standing in the way of conductors' proper professionalisation in the full modern sense of this term. I see no reason to nay-say this – though I still regard there to be more fundamental components to Conductive Education's problems though, if bold imaginative spirits are being driven underground by Yahoos, this may in turn impede solving the major problem with which I opened this posting.

Conductors. Necessary? Sufficient?

I have never needed to point out to people involved in the development and advancement of Conductive Education over the years that conductors are not necessarily the only nor necessarily the most important players in the Conductive Education story. To put it another way, the full and effective participation of conductors in the debates both in and around Conductive Education seems necessary to advance this field – but not sufficient to move Conductive Education forward and keep it on the road. Conductors have played important roles but not necessarily leading ones in the this story – and not always necessarily progressive ones.

I state nothing here that that has not been widely discussed over the years, and not just by 'non-conductors'. If some conductors find this a surprise, then I suggest that they ask themselves why it comes as such, and what this might imply about themselves and their personal positions within the whole.

Again, to paraphrase the well-known meme, Conductive Education is too serious a matter to be left to conductors.

I do not, by the way, suggest that along the way Hungarian conductors have not suffered all sorts of professional discriminations and indignities from both outside Conductive Education and within (though these too seem to receive little airing in the public domain).

More than thirty years down the road of internationalisaing Conductive Education, well into the second decade of the twenty-first century, and with some remarkable successes, nay triumphs, to report, Conductive Education still faces all sorts of fundamental problems. Objective reality surely puts enough its way. Should it still have to put up with such subjective ones too?

Thursday, 16 February 2017


(The cost of compromise?)

I have seen this on a CE centre's website –
...the children were very busy today… and more importantly – having lots of fun!
Well meaning, good-hearted words, representing a widely expressed sentiment, but think hard about what they say, very hard.
Think too of the ever-widening range of activities now referred to as Conductive Education, about the range of interests and agendas being served, the constituencies being addressed, the conflicts being avoided.
Consider so many visual and verbal messages about Conductive Education now conveyed to the world. What notions of Conductive Education now prevail?

* * *

I recall some twenty-odd years ago being asked by a young conductor who had been long enough in the UK to realise the degree of incomprehension and opposition around Conductive Education –
 Oh, when will they stop fighting us?
I had naught for her comfort, except to say –
 When we are no longer any different from how they are.
Since then, has the great, defensive mass of the existing professional-administrative complex shifted significantly towards major positions manifest in Conductive Education? Or will mutual accommodation come as a result of a contrary process, with Conductive Education's finding a niche in established host communities by sinking quietly into existing ways of thinking?
Likely my way of thinking is simplistic and outmoded and there are other models for expressing the problem and possible ways of accommodation. What are they?

Tuesday, 14 February 2017


András Pető finds work 
Russian Soldier Budapest.JPG

Critical readers of András Pető's life story (such of this as is available) might reasonably wonder amongst other things how so soon in 1945 he came to be appointed to the staff of the College of Special Education. 
The dire circumstances of the time and the intervention of his friend Miklós Kun, combine to suggest an explanation:
(Budapest surrendered unconditionally on 13 February 1945)

Saturday, 11 February 2017



We are now a couple of weeks into the Year of the Rooster. I do not have any jokes, quips riddles etc. to bring to the party but here is cause for a quiet smile from three years ago:

Nowadays one hears rather less about András Pető and his wisdom of the Orient (including those wretched fish). Indeed, one hears rather little about András Pető generally..

It really is time to begin refreshing his story. But please not with old Chinese wisdoms such as offered here, appropriate as some of them may seem!


Sutton, A. (2014) New year's whimsy. Wisdom of the Orient? Conductive World, 13 February

Friday, 10 February 2017


The right kind of evidence?

Yesterday's posting on Conductive World introduced some anonymously authored but trenchant qualifications to the most recent research review in the field of Conductive Education:

'Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence' – this simple logical dictum has often been quoted on these pages as an important basis for viewing conclusions often drawn from 'CE research' (or at least from hat proportion of studies actually better described as empirical outcome-evaluation – more specifically still, from that lesser proportion that are quantitative in nature).

One can develop this further by introducing an ethical dimension, questioning the intellectual honesty – or even the honesty of purpose – of those who continue to seek empirical 'research evidence' for the personal and social value of Conductive Education through means whereby this may actually be impossible to find.

In other words, by asking this may be ethically unacceptable.

Particularly problematic are situations in which when any decision-making involved is a matter of educational provision and placement (and therefore also possibly a matter of financial advantage).

Which science, what research?

There is a generally unclear understanding in society about what is meant by 'science' and 'research'. When discussing motor disorder – and by extension any measures taken to influence its effects – the default understanding seems all too often that the science and research to be considered should be medical science and medical research. This is patently nonsense. Psychological science, pedagogical science, other social sciences, all have legitimate contributions to be made, and all have methodologies (indeed choices of methodologies) with at least as much claim to relevance to the task of bettering human existence). See for example:

The most recent public example to arise in the published technical literature comes from the critical comment to the New Zealand research review, cited above.

'Patently nonsense' may sound harsh but, if an approach is of its very nature incapable of answering the questions that individuals and organisations require of it, then it is – as they say – 'not fit for purpose. Possible ethical question arise from the behaviour of those who continue to act on this notwithstanding.

At the level of methodology, there are two frequent (though not all-encompassing) themes:
  • the absolute necessity for uniting theoretical with empirical investigation
  • the absolute necessity for dynamic integration of qualitative as well as quantitative investigations into our understanding of the whole.
In other words (and this is hardly surprising) collection of 'mindless facts' does not add up to educational research.

Why oh why, in 2017, does one have to be still saying this at all in the field of Conductive Education. Is it something within the topic? Or is it at least as much to do with the people involved?

Thursday, 9 February 2017


Some sound sense

Extracts from Appendix 8, 'External peer review – interpretation', of the recently published New Zealand research review –

The core conclusions, that CE is insufficiently supported by research evidence because of the negative findings of higher quality studies; the limited number of high quality studies, and the wide variation in the description of CE are well supported by the research evidence presented here. The consistency of finding of this and the previous ACC report, and the high quality published systematic reviews add weight to these conclusions. However, based on my wider clinical and research expertise, I would add a number of caveats to these conclusions in order to add context to them.

...while the evidence for CE is negative or untrustworthy in these studies, several of the studies describe components of best practice paediatric rehabilitation (or therapy), namely, child/parent education and tailored, context and task specific intervention as part of CE.... This description reflects what would be expected of any evidence-based rehabilitation service... I suggest that the studies on the effect of CE are interpreted in this context.

The greatest barrier in advancing research into CE is the absence of a clear description of it.

...If lack of generalisation [of CE studies] were a reason to not fund CE then this is equally true of any other intervention for this population I can think of.

... a criticism of a lack of follow up was made. I am not aware of any longitudinal study that evaluated the long term effects of a specific rehabilitation intervention... To not fund any intervention on the basis of the absence of this information is ethically questionable for a population that the information cannot be obtained for.

...the conclusion of this review that the lack of change in non-practiced tasks, is equally true of any paediatric rehabilitation intervention...

CE research has tended to target Impairments in motor functions, and discrete Activities rather than enhanced Participation in valued life roles, despite the dominant interest of consumers and families in the long term, being maximal participation in valued life roles...

It is the nature of such external peer reviews that they should be published anonymously. There is plenty for people in Conductive Education in general to consider here in making their eternal case against 'CE research' – and in wondering what studies of their own they might consider. As far specifically as those in New Zealand are concerned, it looks like they could find sound counsel close to home.

Previous posting on this review


Anon (2017) External peer review – interpretation, Appendix 8 of M. Barry. Evidence update: Conductive Education in children with cerebral palsy, pp. 39-40, Accident Compensation Corporation, August