Institute for Promotion of Education.

( Some of the site is available in English)

I think the emphasis on creativity and films is an exciting feature of the Polish dyslexia organisation. Can we do something like this? We could call it DARE with Flare!

The aims of The Institute for Education:

The aim of the Foundation is to initiate educational activity for the benefit of educational institutions open to the abilities and needs of teachers and students.

The aims of the Foundation shall be accomplished especially in the following three areas of activity:

Project 1: developing and enhancing educational opportunities for children with special educational needs, especially the ones with dyslexia and dyscalculia;

Project 2: creating friendly and safe schools by building positive relations among teachers, parents and students;
“>
Project 3: popularizing culture, arts and education by producing and distributing a wide variety of educational, artistic or popular science audiovisual materials, as well as organizing film workshops – HARPOON FILMS Studio.


Some of the English is a little quaint. There is a heading “Organs of the Foundation” _ This was surely intended to be “Governing Rules”!!
– Isn’t language a funny thing!!

 

From chapter 4 of the Australian Senate EWRCs’ 2002 Report into Education of students with disabilities.

    “… 4.63 Dr Paul Whiting of AUSPELD told the committee that by not distinguishing between the two conditions, education departments were failing students with learning disabilities. He explained:

    The difficulty [of the present approach] is that it conflates difficulties in learning that are produced by extrinsic factors—that is, things like poor schooling, absence from school, emotional problems and sensory problems—with intrinsic factors such as dyslexia when we know there are biochemical and physiological differences between people who are dyslexic and people who have no reading problems. So the issue of definition is important from our point of view because the treatment implications will be different depending on how you define the problem.[69]…”

 

Phelps v London Borough of Hillingdon (2001) 2 AC 619 (UKHL; 27 July 2000)

From Lord Clyde’s remarks therein (our emphasis):

    There is no question that a teacher owes a duty of care for the physical safety of a child attending school under the charge of that teacher. The teacher has a duty to take reasonable care that the child does not come to harm through any danger which may arise during the course of the child’s attendance at the school. But the present case is different in certain respects from that situation. The allegation of negligence is directed not at the risks of physical dangers which might occur through something dangerous in the premises, but at something done in the course of the educational activities of the school. Secondly, the criticism is directed essentially at a failure in the giving of advice upon the condition and educational needs of the child. Thirdly, while the injury which is alleged to have occurred is principally a loss or at least a retardation of their educational progress with such consequential financial loss and expense as that may entail, it may also involve some form of mental or psychological injury. The loss claimed may be purely of an economic character. But the mental or psychological effects of negligent advice may in themselves be able to constitute a proper head of damages, such as a post-traumatic stress disorder or a psychological illness. Dyslexia is a condition which may in itself become worse through the absence of an appropriate educational regime, and the frustration of an inappropriate regime may cause psychological stress and injury. The consequences of negligent advice regarding the future treatment of a child with some special educational need may take a variety of forms and may be extensive.
 

Ankur Jain. “Dyslexia drove Jignesh from city“. — Times of India 9 May 2011.

 
 
 
 
 

BILL PLACING BURDEN OF PROOF ON DISTRICTS NOW LAW
MAJOR LEGISLATIVE COUP FOR SPECIAL ED ADVOCATES

    …Placing the burden on school districts simply requires school districts to show that they are providing a student with an appropriate education, consistent with federal and state special education law. It is easier for school districts to bear the burden than families, as the districts possess virtually all of the information regarding an educational placement. Returning the burden to school districts does not unduly burden districts or tax payers, as it ensures that tax dollars are being spent on effective programs and enhances district accountability…

For more, click here

 

“After Kate and Pippa … another Middleton does rather nicely” (Georgina Robinson, Sydney Morning Herald 12 May 2011.)

“…Mr Middleton, 23, suffers from dyslexia and chose to memorise his two-minute-40-second-long Romans 12 extract rather than read it from the Bible and risk jumbling the words, London’s Telegraph reported….”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/after-kate-and-pippa–another-middleton-does-rather-nicely-20110512-1ejug.html#ixzz1MBt8Nsr3