Much of my thinking time yesterday was spent pondering Paces' adult services and conductive education. Prompted by a meeting in the morning, the subject whirled around my head all the rest of the day and into the evening.
Partly my pondering is about conductive education. We know something about "conductive pedagogy"; but what do we know of "conductive andragogy"? We know something about "conductive upbringing"; but what do we know about "conductive living?" Coincidentally, I yesterday, too, happened to re-read Andrew Sutton's "Memorandum to the Norwegians", about which he had posted on his blog ("CE Research: An overview"). Noting that strictly it falls outside his brief, Andrew writes that "the much smaller field of adult conductive rehabilitation has attracted a small body of empirical outcome research" to which similar methodoclogical issues apply as to research into conductive education with children. In short, nothing much to help me there.
Partly my pondering was also personal; relating to the imminent move of my daughter into a home of her own with two friends. It has been a long time coming: she, and we her parents, were ready for it several years ago. I must confess I find it difficult to stop refering to her as a "girl" - and to the three friends as "the three girls". She's 29, one of her friends is 30 and I should do better. Sometimes, I manage "young women". Anyhow, I was wondering about the movement from childhood to adulthood, from children's services to adults' services, from school to ... to what? Maybe there is no "what?"
The recent SEN Green Paper from the DfE proposed a unitary system of education, care and health assessement and the maintenance of an individual plan from 0-25 years. This would be a radical step, not just in the notion of education, care and health bureaucracies having to find ways of working with each other, but also because it forces a taking account of what it means to leave school, to set out on becoming an adult, on becoming independent. Local authorities, at least as far as I know, have always contended that their responsibility to maintain a statement of special educational need ends at 19 years.
Coincidentally, too, I yesterday had an email from Susie Mallett (thanks, Susie) alerting me to an article in yesterday morning's Daily Telegraph: "Down's Syndrome case could see thousands of special needs adults taught alongside children". Apparently, (one says "apparently", relying on only one journalist's report), "the father of a woman with Down’s Syndrome is attempting to force his local council to let her stay in school until she turns 25".
And I wonder, why on earth would he want to do that? Perhaps, because there is no real alternative for her and him and the family? That would seem a possible explanation though not one that the journalist explores. Yet that is precisely why, as I began this post, I was yesterday pondering what Paces' adult sevices should be. What is Paces' alternative? One point I was quite clear on: Paces' adult services should not be "more school"; not more 'pedagogy'.
As we all move, as I hope we will, to the introduction of 0-25 year individual plans; as the 'personalisation' policy extends ever wider across adult and increasingly children's services, the progression, the transition, from childhood to adulthood, the need for all to able to leave behind childhood and schooling will need to be argued for and the necessary arrangements funded. What these should not be, is more school.