An orthopedagogical method for children with a depression

ABSTRACT

An orthopedagogical method for teaching children with a depression is presented here. Relatively unknown in the English‐speaking world, orthopedagogy is a pedagogical discipline that is aimed at an entire action field. It does not target the child with handicap, but the entire problematic educational situation (PES). Orthopedagogy is the scientific study of assistance given to those concerned with a PES ‐ namely, the child, parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, and so on. To break through a PES or to get rid of it, the orthopedagogician has to listen to the orthopedagogical request for help of the child and give an appropriate answer to it. On the basis of a theoretical model of Paul Gilbert, an orthopedagogic request for helping children with a depression was formulated. Gilbert's model offers a perspective derived from evolution theory and argues for the adoption of a bio‐psychological approach. Children with a depression request a warm and loving climate, an attractive and simple education situation and close involvement on the part of the educator. To answer that request, we set orthopedagogical action on two tracks. On track 1 (dialogical action) we try to break through the PES by asking the educator to over‐accentuate the pedagogical climate, the education situation and his/her own presentation. On track 2 (technical action) we designed an approach aimed at children aged between 6 and 12 years with a depression.     

Education for older adults

The developments and changes in the concept of ‘education for older adults’ during the last two decades are reviewed in this article. The origin of the terms ‘third age’ and ‘educational gerontology’ are discussed also and the issue of non-legitimation is raised.     

Policy rhetoric and the renovation of English schooling: the case of Creative Partnerships

My critical evaluation of the government's White Paper, Learning to Succeed: a new framework for post-16 learning, which was published in the Journal of Educational Policy (2000, 15(2), 237-246) has provoked a critique by Pat Ainley, which is the main purpose of this section of the journal on Documents and Debates. He claims that my article suffers from two sins of omission: first, I am apparently unaware that the new legislation excludes higher education; and second, I have apparently failed to see that the Learning and Skills Council may become a new Leviathan rather than a new enlightenment. Both criticisms are, in my opinion, wide of the mark for the reasons given below, and this response ends with some comments on Pat Ainley's contribution.