Saturday, 20 June 2015



There are people in disability the world over, as in their wider societies, who choose to express themselves cloyingly. This of course is their right. Like many another right, however, it may be exercised to the point of harming others.

Perhaps it is unsurprising that this strand of thinking is represented within the microcosm of Conductive Education too – unsurprising but no less undesirable for that. You might think that conductors especially might be better aware of the need to maintain public respect and confidence in their own 'professionalism'. By far the majority whom I have ever met over the years most certainly are, and it is a shame when they are let down in the long struggle to get Conductive Education recognised as a serious contender.

The miscreants ought to be told that, to most sensible and sensitive people, to parents, and to other conductors, to most people working in the field of disability, and to hard-nosed policy makers, talk of disabled children as 'angels' may seem as at least bonkers  – and at worse gushingly sentimental to the point of being embarrassing, or even positively offensive.

If they are not told, when will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

So please, no more talk of 'Playing with angels' and 'Angelville'. Please. It lowers the public tone, and the credibility and reputation of Conductive Education are diminished. We all suffer.



    Neither on parents as angles.

  2. Andrew, I have had this same opinon for a long time that conductors should not describe their clients as angels, and more so since I have read on some American parents' blogs that they talk about their deceased children as angels, and that is different.

    Rony, whether or not you mean here that we should look at this from a parent's angle, point of view, or that we should not refer to parents as angels, I totally agree with both.