1
419 Conductive Education - Bitter Debate Controversy broke out again about the effectiveness of conductive education following a report by a team from the University of Birmingham School of Psychology, under the leadership of Professor Raymond Cochrane, which was published on May 14. This research, which was sponsored by the university’s Department for Education, was carried out at the Birmingham Institute for Conductive Education and at several special schools in the Greater Manchester area. A section summarising its conclusions on the effectiveness of the system reads: ‘While children receiving conductive education made progress on a wide range of functional and physical measures, there was no evidence to support predictionsthat they would achieve better rates of progress than children receiving British programmes of special education. On the contrary, despite the fact that conditions favoured the group receiving conductive education, the only evidence for differences in their rate of development was in favour of the group in Greater Manchester. ‘An investigation of the progress of individual children showed that while it might be possible to argue that conductive education had been a “success” for some children it could be argued, equally, that it had been a “failure” for others. ‘Until it can be demonstrated that conductive education meets the expect- ations of its protagonists, the following conclusionsare appropriate: staff involved with United Kingdom special education should be circumspect in their view of conductive education and should not feel compelled to adopt the methods which are advocated; parents of children with cerebral palsy should regard with caution the promises made on behalf of conductive education and they should not feel they are failing if they do not secure conductive education for their child.’ ‘Not Enough Research’ The report was criticised, however, by Dr Maria Hari, director-general of the Pet0 Andras Institutefor Conductive Educ- ation in Budapest: ‘At least f400,000 has been spent on the report and it is disappointing that the Conductive Education Honours St Margaret Historic links between Hungary and Scotland were strengthened in April with the visit of Dr Maria Hari, director of the International Pet0 Institute in Budapest, to Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh. She was the key speaker at a conference on conductive education which was held as part of the St Margaret 900 celebrations. Other delegates included many leading figures in the development of conductive education philosophy and practice in Britain. St Margaret, after whom Queen Margaret College is named, was born in Hungary before coming to Scotland and marrying Malcolm Canmore. She was the first woman to leave a major mark on Scottish history. The picture shows (left to right) Ann Loton (assistant head teachec Horton Lodge School), Elaine Dove (co-ordinatoc Resource Unit for Motor Disorder, Queen Margaret College), Ester Cotton (Hornsey Centre), Phil Robson (education officer (CE), Spastics Society) Maria Hari (director; Pet0 Institute), Olwyn Clark (head teacher, Clippens School), Maureen Lilley (directoc Hornsey Centre), Olive Surtees (formerly superintendent physiotherapist at the Percy Hedley School), Mike Lambed (direct06 Birmingham Institute), and Lillemor Jernqvist (directoc Craighalbert Centre). concept of conductive education still has not been grasped’, said Dr Hari. ‘Conduc- tive education has been operational in Budapest for over forty years, yet our work for the most part has been ignored in this publication. ‘Findings, instead, have been based on a system that we in Hungary would not recognise as conductive education. The “conductors” were in fact trainees with a limited knowledge of conductive education at the time of research. Only 19 children of a mixed disability group were studied - hardly the basis for a national study. The “research” took place over a two-year period during the training process and during that time there was constant change in environment, making it impossible to make a sound assessment. . ‘Indeed the researchers themselves state that the Birmingham Institute did not provide the necessary conditions for the children to receive conductive education. ‘The work that was carried out during the period of the research bore no resemblance to the quality and consistency of education offered to children in Hungary. It is disappointing that so much money should have been squandered on such an ill-thought-out project when, with a little more co-operation from the research. we could have had a clear and accurate assessment based on nearly half a century of tried and tested work.’ ‘No Cause for Alarm’ The Spastics Society added reassur- ances to parents and professionals. The Society’s director of operations, Robert Hancock, admitted there was a need for detailed authoritative research into conductive education ‘but this is not it’. A detailed sheet of criticisms has been issued by the Spastics Society which says the report was an unfair evaluation of a sample which was much too small, and that it attacked claims for the system which those using it have never made. A Federation for Conductive Education Was launched in London on June 5. Physlotherapy, June 1993, vol79, no 6
