Scotland and the 1981 Education Act

Bureaucratic, over-formal and time consuming, but strengthening parents' rights and sharpening up the accountability of professionals - these are among the main reactions to the recording procedures of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 which a Scottish team discovered recently. Dr George Thomson and Alexander Budge, of the Department of Education, Edinburgh University, and Marianna Buultjens and Margaret Lee, Moray House College of Education, Edinburgh, report on aspects of their study of the reactions of professionals and parents concerned with the education of visually impaired children.     

Parental Perceptions and the 1981 Education Act

Parents of children assessed for special educational needs were interviewed in two London Boroughs. The results, highly relevant to the current issues of integration and parental participation, are discussed by Dr Sarah Sandow, principal lecturer in the Education Department, West London Institute of Higher Education, and research assistant, Penny Stafford.     

The 1981 Education Act in Derbyshire

Derbyshire Local Education Authority reviews its arrangements for providing a service to pupils with special educational needs. Julien Kramer, assistant education officer, special needs, reports that while the new procedures find general acceptance there are some warts that need to be treated.     

Challenges in the 1981 Act

The effectiveness of the 1981 Education Act will depend on how it is interpreted. Prof. K. Wedell, J. Welton and G. Vorhaus, Institute of Education, London University, discuss some challenges presented by the concept, assessment and formulation of special educational needs     

Barasley Responds to the 1981 Act

Findings from the countrywide study of how local education authorities have been implementing the 1981 Education Act, given in the preceding pages, are complemented by this case study of one LEA's response to the Act. Jim Conway, adviser, special educational needs, and Roy Hepworth, assistant education officer, Metropolitan District of Barnsley, also refer to some of the issues raised by Professor Wedell and his coauthors, including the definition of 'special educational needs', the way the term is being interpreted, and the continuing emphasis on within-child factors.     

Policy and Provision under the 1981 Act

This paper is an account of a research project on 'The 1981 Education Act: Policy and Provision for Special Educational Needs'. It was carried out at the Institute of Education, London University, and funded by the Department of Education and Science. The research was directed by Dr J. Welton and Professor K. Wedell. Brian Goacher was the senior research officer and Jennifer Evans, the research officer.     

Parents,professionals and social welfare models: the implementation of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the effect of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1981, in terms of one of its aims, that is, to increase parental control over assessment, recording and placement of children with special educational needs. Kirp (1982) has argued that British provision for children with special educational needs reflects a social welfare model based on a belief in professional benevolence and expertise. This is in contrast with the United States, where a human rights model of social welfare prevails. Kirp's account is critically examined through an analysis of the legislation and guidance literature, and also data gathered from interviews with professionals and parents.

It is concluded that data do exist to support Kirp's argument. The legislation did not radically increase parents’ rights, and professionals themselves retained control through failing to provide parents with adequate information, often excluding them from multi‐disciplinary meetings and omitting to foster the involvement of voluntary organisations and Named Persons.     

Will Circular 6/86 Frustrate the 1981 Act?

The implications of DES Circular 6/86 are discussed by Harry Daniels and Sarah Sandow, who are engaged in in-service education for teachers in special education, at the West London Institute of Higher Education.     

构建终身教育体系是践行科学发展观的重大举措

构建终身教育体系是践行科学发展观的重大举措.我们应从教育发展战略的角度,认识构建终身教育体系在我国教育发展中的意义,分析当前我国终身教育体系构建状况,研究解决问题的对策.     

Race and the Education Reform Act

The abandonment of a commitment to the achievement of social democratic consensus in the Thatcherite project and the emphasis on individualism and the market means that a new source of cultural hegemony has to be sought. It is being attempted by the inculcation of a particular form of nationalism using the family and schools as a vehicle. The exact parameters of what constitutes Britishness are achieved by the marginalization of groups and movements that threaten the particular Thatcherite model of the nation and the imposition of a limited, and racist, model of culture. Within education a struggle is developing over content as the government seeks to impose a National Curriculum that reflects its ideology while structural changes hasten the commodification of education. Both the curriculum and structural changes are likely to have a detrimental effect on black and working-class pupils.     

Further Education and the 1988 Act

This month colleges of further education will have new governing bodies under the provisions of the Education Reform Act. Their composition and their size, combined with the effects of local financial management, may change the range and quality of courses for students with special educational needs. Derek Betts, education secretary, National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, describes and comments on the changes taking place.     

素质教育的理解与落实

素质教育是适应国际国内的客观形势,对教育现实提出的新要求,也是教育理论及实践自身发展的要求。素质教育的主要内涵就是要坚持全面发展的教育,教育的对象应面向全体,强调终身性和可持续性,尊重学习者的个性和差异性,充分发挥学习者的主动性和创造性。素质教育的落实需要正确认识素质教育的含义和要求,继续进行课程及教学改革,提高教师的专业素养。     

论创新教育的实施

作者从文化、管理和学科建设的视角探讨创新教育的实施,阐述了文化环境、管理环境和学科的结构、规模和水平在创新教育中的作用,提出在实施创新教育的过程中,必须注重文化创新和管理创新.     

The Passing of the Education Reform Act

When the Education Reform Bill, now an Act, was published higher education received little attention. It was a massive Bill, with major changes for the schools. But as time went on reaction outside Parliament, and lobbies within it caused higher education, but mainly the universities and their role, to be forced to the front of the political stage. Although key government concessions were made in the Commons, most of the action happened in the Lords. The government may have wanted to deflect the Lords from making substantial changes to their school reforms by giving their Lordships something to bite on in higher education. Or was it the success of the CVCP campaign, which undoubtedly raised morale in the universities, that was responsible for key changes? Was it luck, political circumstance, or the intellectual vigour of the arguments that led to government defeats on the question of academic freedom? This paper traces the passage of the Bill as it affected higher education.