Dyspraxia is a learning disability that comes in three forms verbal, motor and oral whereby the child may have average or above average intelligence but the brain works in a different manner it is hard for the child to demonstrate their knowledge, i.e. reading comprehension may be affected because the processing of the information is different, as with verbal and/or written/symbolic comprehension.
The problem with such a learning difficulty makes it hard for teachers to evaluate the progress and intelligence of the child and normal learning assignments and exams may prove an impossible form of evaluation. Therefore it is essential that the teacher works with the child to understand the learning processes of the child, attempting to provide methods that will either enable the child to take part in normal forms of evaluation or endeavor to produce an alternative form, but equivalent to the mainstream evaluation.
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Teaching Strategies Dyspraxia | Education Dissertation" essay for youCreate order
Dyspraxia can be remedied in part by retraining and advancing the child’s method of expressing their comprehension and evaluation. This is a pertinent role of the teacher, because to separate the child may have adverse effects as the child can comprehend internally the information only it expression is less advanced. Therefore this discussion will explore some theories of teaching methods comparing and contrasting the benefits of one-on-one teaching to that of mainstream teaching at the foundation level. It will also highlight the strategies of the teacher in order to integrate children with Dyspraxia at the foundation level.
It is at the foundation levels that children with Dyspraxia have most learning difficulties because their comprehension is average but there level of expression of this comprehension is limited. Therefore it is at this stage that these children have to be trained to express and advance their expression. In short it would be necessary for there to be accommodations to be made in the education system to ensure that the teaching of these children is sufficient. The arguments to creating teaching methods into the mainstream education system at the foundation level are very similar to the arguments of employing disabled persons in the workplace. The first argument will follow the arguments for integration into the workforce and then will consider specific teaching methods. The first main argument is whether there should be differential treatment for the children with Dyspraxia.
To understand the extent that the current disability rights are effective one must understand there is a difference between a mere legal right and an inherent (also known as substantive) right. Hohfeld has been the most significant jurisprudential thinker to discuss the difference between the varying types of rights. The focus of Hohfeld’s analysis of rights is from an analytical perspective; the main aim of Hohfeld’s work was to clarify exactly what rights are. Hohfeld’s analysis of rights is split into four different categories which are; claim-right; privilege; power and immunity.
These rights have been put together into a grid of entitlements which enables one to understand the nature and content of rights; which the individual has in varying degrees. It is this clear and precise method that makes Hohfeld’s analysis fundamental to rights interpretation within legal arenas. This exploration is going to argue that this exposition of rights is essential to jurisprudence and understanding the nature of rights. Under English law Hohfeld’s analysis clearly expresses how varying degrees of rights are contained under the Human Rights Act 1998 and do not conflict with parliamentary sovereignty. As Helen Fenwick discusses:
“Under Hohfeld’s view… it becomes clear that, traditionally, most freedoms in the UK were merely liberties; one did no wrong to exercise them, but there was no positive duty on any organ of the state to facilitate them… When the Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force… many Hohfeldian liberties became rights in Hofeldian terms since… public authorities have been laid under a positive duty to respect them” .
Hohfeld’s analysis is that the confusion over the nature of rights has been effectively eliminated. In contrast to the controversies in theorists such as Dworkin , Kymlicka , Kant and MacKinnon , it does not get trapped into confusing the nature of rights with the justification of rights. If one applies this to problems concerning gender; discrimination; animal; and environmental rights one could actually apply a type of right in order to rectify the legal and moral inequities. Legal and political philosophers have gotten too tied up in justifying rights, that they have confused the meaning of right. Hohfeld has provided an interesting tool in order to level the playing field, because the question concerning the equality of rights is no longer an issue.
Instead Hohfeld’s analysis allows for different right-elements to be applied in different situations. Therefore Hohfeld’s analysis can be applied to both legal analysis and moral quandaries, which means that one in addition to clarifying rights can use this analysis as a tool to justifying rights.
Hohfeld was very humble in his aims for his analysis of rights, because it has provided more than a tool to clarify rights. For example if one applied this problem to media law where there are conflicts in the right to privacy and the freedom of press, these rights possibly fall into the categories of immunity; claim-right; and privilege. The problem is that they are competing rights and if one applies the level of right, also to the specific facts then the confusion that has happened between courts would be a lot less likely. In short Hohfeld’s analysis has taken out all the moral quandaries in the nature of rights; and has provided an analytical method to apply to both moral quandaries and the justification of rights. This will become more apparent in the following chapters.
In relation to absolute human rights or substantive rights then these are immunities which the government cannot interfere with; however a mere legal right is a privilege whereby the government has provided disability rights, but there is no need to provide these rights and may be taken away if in the government’s interest. Therefore this illustrates the importance of making disability rights substantive rights but not only in the workplace but also in schools. This means if integration is the best form because it makes such a disability socially acceptable then this should be the method taken. In order to do this there must be specialized teaching methods which the teachers use and have a duty to provide in much the same way that employers have to provide special adaptations for disabled adults.
The Learning Disabilities Association of America argues that the student from an early age should be subject to a curriculum that mirrors that of the child without disability, only with “some accommodations and modifications may be necessary”. They argue that these modifications should take the form of an Individual Education Programme whereby for students with reading difficulties or expression of comprehension through reading should have a mixture of one-on-one reading with a teacher and should also be provided with texts that are on tape so that they can follow along with the reading material.
If the problem is of the memory or the inability to take down information, i.e. motor problems the teacher should provide a taped lesson for the child, teacher and parents to review at a speed whereby the child can than express their comprehension. If the motor skill impede too much then a special software programme through voice should be used. Also children with Dyspraxia at the foundation level may find expression easier by using other forms of expression, i.e. songs, rhymes, dances, tapes etc. Also along the same line to help expression of comprehension and teach how to express properly then using the other senses such as touch should be considered. These are teaching techniques that all children can use therefore this will not impede the other learners at the foundation level; as well as letting the teacher be more innovative and creative as well as building the blocks for the Individual Education Programme of the Dyspraxic child.
The Australian Dyspraxic Support Group also advances techniques to help the child express their comprehension of the educative material. This group does not seem to indicate that there should be either specialized teaching or integration into the mainstream education system at the foundational levels. The aim seems to be to help the child and ensure that their intelligence is not impeded by stereotypes with putting the right teaching techniques with child. Therefore if it is motor based Dyspraxia it is to specialize teaching in developing the organization and capability of the planned expression of comprehension in the ways that the child can.
If it is verbal Dyspraxia then development of the speech processes and other forms of communication should be developed and finally if it is oral Dyspraxia then written forms of communication should be used and also attempts to develop speech skills should be introduced. Therefore the use of sensory and taped materials would will really benefit the development of the child at the foundation level. Also to have integration will expose the child to mimic and use ways of communication that isolation would be unable to do so. Therefore one can infer that mainstream integration at the foundation levels would be the best approach.
Belinda Hill advances in her article and research for the Dyspraxia Association of Ireland that technological aides can be used to integrate children with verbal and oral Dyspraxia. These aides include speaking computers, machines that enhance speech, machines that have a set response when a specific button is pushed, communication through symbols. These aides will help a child integrate and not feel lost in a world of communication. This would provide confidence and social development of a child which isolated education could not provide.
The Dyspraxia Association of New Zealand advances a lesser advanced strategy but focuses on the necessity of the child be integrated into the mainstream educational system from the foundation level as their research shows that the best development of a child with this disability is to base the education as every other child’s education the classroom teacher. The teacher would have to use a slightly different technique but evaluation and development should be on similar lines as other children. In their guidelines in what the teacher can do is as follows:
Figure One – What the Teacher can do:
Make allowances, lower expectations in spite of child seeming bright enough.
Allow more time.
Adjust quantity of work.
Give gentle reminders.
Good teaching practices win every time.
Listen to parent, who knows this child better than anyone ever will.
Break tasks down into more manageable parts – simplify!
Don’t assume the child has understood.
Give single instructions rather than a string because …
If you treat the child the same as the others, his failure rate will be immeasurably higher than it needs to be. He knows that he is not the same; a higher failure rate means a very much lower self esteem, etc., etc.
The key factor that this table shows is the child should not be segregated as it may reduce the self-esteem of the child and cause an inferiority complex. This will be interesting to contrast with the view of those who advance home schooling who believe that main stream education is disadvantaging children of all developmental elements. This will be the focus of the discussion, with a brief review of the literature in the following section. Yet the teaching techniques point to integration is possible maybe even favorable to that of specialized teaching.
The key point is that integration should include an Individual Education Programme and understanding of the disability much in the same way that adaptations and understanding are essential to adaptations in the disability workplace as the following legal cases will illustrate. Therefore such a duty should be imposed on teachers for modifications if employers have a duty to their disabled employees; otherwise the arguments about the degradation of mainstream education will succeed.
The issue of inequality in the workplace has long been established, along with the disabled because neither has been seen to be fully human in the same way as a man, because women may become pregnant and want maternity needs and the disabled person may need special needs or possibly fall ill. In reality able-bodied men may need paternity needs or fall ill, however this is not seen as likely for them and they provide the marker for how all other persons should be treated, even if disabled . This seems to be irrational thinking, but still a major concern with employers today, especially in relation to promotions and redundancies , yet the EAT has ruled that redundancies cannot occur due to disability, the question of reasonable adaptations have to be taken into account .
The extent of reasonable adaptations was questioned in Kenny v Hampshire Constabulary where it was determined that they are only reasonable in the doing of the job and easily adaptable but not to personal needs. In addition the employer has a defence of justification against reasonable adaptation which makes the notion of reasonable adaptation pointless and returns to the objective marker as being the able bodied man , because the reasonable adaptation cases are too contradictory. This was recognized in Heinz v Kendrick were it made a positive move forward in ensuring disability rights. . In 2001 this seems to have been tightened with the Cosgrove Case where it was held that “an employer who fails to consider making adjustments as required by DDA 1995 s.6 cannot escape liability for that failure simply on the basis that the disabled employee was unable to suggest an appropriate adjustment.”
It has also been question what stipulates disabled, one test is the evidence of medical experts and not the opinion of the employer and tribunal; hence iterating an objective medical test . In Goodwin v Patent Office it was held that:
The Tribunal was wrong to focus on the fact that Mr Goodwin could cope unaided at home, and to assume from this that he therefore fell outside the definition of disability in the Act. The evidence was that Mr Goodwin was unable to hold a normal conversation, behaved strangely at times and had significantly impaired concentration. All this clearly pointed, on a broad and purposive interpretation of the Act, to his being disabled under the law.
In Cruickshank v VAW Motorcars a test was created to include various forms of disability, in addition to include the subjectivity of the individual as different disabilities or illness affect individuals in different manner; so the effect of the individual as well as the disability at the time of discrimination is taken into account. These cases should be taken into the education system to ensure along the same vein that teachers are endeavoring to integrate Dyspraxic children into the foundational levels of the education system, rather than leaving them on the side.
This is key to the self-esteem and the development of a child who is of average or above intelligence but has problems in expression. In order to do this the child needs to be afforded substantive rights to appropriate education, much in the same way that the argument from home schoolers bases their argument; however as the discussion will illustrate the home-schooling or specialized education may be the only route if the appropriate attention and development of the education system is not attended to. The following section will consider some of the ethical literature with the problem of integration, if appropriate teaching methods and educational standard is not being afforded to children at the foundation levels (and beyond).
The results may prove that it is not impossible for children with Dyspraxia to be integrated into the mainstream education system. Yet as the results also suggest although it is possible to integrate children with Dyspraxia into the mainstream education system it may not be in the best interests of the child. Also the other children in the system and the teacher have to be considered because if the teacher is not properly educated in teaching children with disabilities this means that the child will not receive the benefits of the integration, also either this child or the rest of the children will be deprived of the teacher’s attention. Also this may also add further stresses on the teacher’s resources and may impose too many duties on the teacher. As Aquinas points out the most important aspect about learning and education is self-development the attainment of the individual’s perfection. This cannot always be dictated by mainstream education; therefore this discussion will introduce this angle into the conversation, which will be focused on the discussion.
The union of soul and body is no chastisement of the soul but a salutary bond through which the human soul will reach its full perfection. This is not a theory forged expressly for the particular case of the soul. Rather, it is the case which is necessarily governed according to metaphysical principles, and their scope is universal. The less perfect is ordered toward the more perfect as toward its end; it is for it; not against it… Each creature exists for its own act and its own perfection…. Individuals exist for the perfection of the universe… The reason for the existence of a determined substance or determined mode of existence is never to be found in an evil but in a good.
This analysis of the human, as represented by Aquinas, as argued by Gilson portrays a notion of a higher purpose for each individual. This purpose links to the soul and is an integral part of God’s creation. Aquinas’ theory is entrenched in religious thought from the Catholic Church of the 13th Century; where science, theology, philosophy and politics where within the church’s domain and the central belief is that man was created for God’s purpose and life and death was His domain. The following exploration will consider the theological and philosophical concerns of Aquinas in relation to the individual and the idea of the body and life and attaining knowledge through education.
The theological concern of Aquinas’ theory is the attainment of perfection, because in the nature of being each is at a different level of perfection with God as the Supreme Being. This is a very important part of Aquinas’ five ways, the basis of his cosmological and teleological arguments. Therefore this provides a modicum of self-determination at the hands of God; however humanity unlike the rest of God’s creations has been given freewill in order to attain a higher level of understanding and development to become further within the image of God, such as the occurrence within the Garden of Eden and the eating of the apple.
In short Aquinas’ theory demonstrates that humanity was given freewill and the ability to attain knowledge in order to achieve the determined level of knowledge, perfection and understanding akin to the level of God; it is this that creates man in God’s image and it is such understanding which allows for the furtherance of scientific discovery; however there are problems when humanity intervenes into the sanctity of life and the determination of life and death; which is the domain of the Necessary Being, the Creator.
Therefore how does this apply to schooling and education? The answer is specialized and integrated schooling is the best method for attaining this self-perfection, if non-integrated schooling is better then the arguments surrounding the notion of social development is null and void. As this chapter of the discussion will illustrate the method that is better method for children to retain knowledge and attain the goal of perfection. This discussion will aim to introduce the validity of integrating into mainstream education at the foundation level, because if is the method that the government wishes to take it should take into consideration not only if the teaching methods are available but whether this is in the best interests of the child especially when there are so many social problems in school; if this is going to hinder the child’s development, especially one with a learning difficulty as Dyspraxia.
So considering the arguments of cultural relativists will hopefully put the problem of mainstream integration into context because it takes away the specific needs of the culture; however this can be applied in the context where culture can be replaced by the society/community of children with Dyspraxia.
The arguments from cultural relativists are the main set of criticisms of universal human rights, i.e. all laws and human development is focused on the rules and traditions of each culture and society. The first and most basic of rights – freedom and autonomy in a secular state – is criticized as very Eurocentric and fails to allow for cultural differences. The main part of universal human rights theory is based upon morality and the cultural relativist would argue that morality is subject to the culture, history and religious founding of each society. Therefore ‘there are no human rights absolutes, that the principles which we may use for judging behaviour are relative to the society in which we are raised, that there is infinite cultural variability and that all cultures are morally equal or valid’.
This argument undermines the basis of all human rights theory because they all stem from the basis that there is a universal morality. Also it would view non-citizens as an area that each culture would deal with its own cultural norms. The main argument against universality in the 20th and 21st Centuries comes from the resistance to Western Economic Imperialism. Shestack illustrates Claude Levi-Strauss argument in the following manner – all cultures and their differences need to be respected as equally moral to that of the West and that the Universality angle is just another attempt of the West imposing its morality on other cultures, which he believed must be stopped as other cultures should be allowed to develop and evolve naturally.
Most would agree that the West should not impose its views, governance and culture upon other cultures. Human rights theorists are arguing that morality is outside and transcends these human constructions and is common to all persons, and not part of the development of a society, as cultural relativists would argue. Is it fair that in the name of cultural identity that repression should be allowed causing ‘an obligatory homogeneity and diminishing the place of the individual in the calculus of identity politics’? The most common answer would be no, no-one is saying that cultural identity should be obliterated instead that it is not part of the transcendental nature of the morality of basic human rights and freedoms. These rights and freedoms are not there to suppress culture but should be the logical ends for a culture to aspire to. As Shestack argues that violations of individual’s rights are not affirmed in any valid culture and in fact the religions and culture basis itself on acting for the good of its people and ‘most confirmed relativist scholars are repulsed at practises which are highly coercive and abusive and accept that at least some human rights values are absolute’.
However, on the whole, the rights and development of each individual from a child is based upon the cultural norms, i.e. development is relative.
The main attack on Universalism is the argument of cultural relativism; it has been argued that there are no universals and all rights are from the construction of society and culture. Therefore if women are treated inferior to their male counterparts, this is the construction of that society and the Western ideals have no right to interfere, as long as the women consent. This begs the question because there is no consent if a system has been biased against your identity for generations.
The cultural relativist argument is so bound in the fact that basic universality comes from the Western Liberal tradition, that it has not taken time out to look at Eastern cultures and what they say are basic to the human being, although that discourse may not be based on autonomy or individuality, certain key ideas come through.
Although not all cultures speak in the discourse of autonomy, arguably they do have the concept of equality and respect that indicates there are rights outside the culture and afforded to people on the essence of being human. Therefore if one assumes that culture equates to the community of Dyspraxic children then it is entirely possible that their needs will not be met in mainstream education. The discussion will further this and aim to show that this is not always the case with respect to the rights of the child and the rights of the teacher in mind.
This study is considering the approaches as well as the justification of integrating children with Dyspraxia in to the mainstream education system as the foundation level, as opposed to giving specialized teaching and integrating at a later stage. In order to do this is will discuss the practical adaptation to include children at the foundation level by considering a range of sources throughout the world that have provided teaching methods for children with Dyspraxia. These sources are internet based as the internet gives the widest range and up to date information on the teaching of children with Dyspraxia.
This study has also considered the benefits of fitting children in the mainstream education system and asking the question whether this is in the best interests of the child, especially with the amount of literature suggesting that other forms of schooling, such as home schooling is a better option especially in a world where morals are degrading. This information is primarily from North America as a lot more home schooling is undertaken, in addition when considering the best interests of the child it is important to consider their rights and choices; as well as the parents, i.e. is it right to impose integration into the foundation system if it is not in the best interests of the child? Therefore an ethical, legal and social perspective has been considered. The rest of this study will now consider whether the aforementioned literature provides a system to whether the teaching methods of integrating children with Dyspraxia would be successful and even so would it be in the best interests of the child.
This discussion will be from a theoretical level comparing and contrasting the different avenues presented to the state on the question whether to impose teaching methods to include children Dyspraxia into mainstream foundation curriculum or to provide specialized teaching. This discussion has assumed that this routine questioning necessarily imposes such a duty therefore the discussion surrounds the legal and ethical consequences of such a duty.
This discussion is from a theoretical perspective and has not dealt with quantitative data; rather it deals with a qualitative approach considering the human rights, ethical and legal questions that arise from imposing teaching strategies to integrate children with Dyspraxia at the foundation level. It presupposes that such teaching methods if beneficial to the child will be imposed by the state. It excludes the possibility that the state will not impose these teaching even if it is the most beneficial course of action to the child. Also it does not include a quantitative and statistical approach to the question.
The search for studies and appropriate research material is done via identifying four types of discussion area; the teaching methods that are available to the teacher; the impacts of the child’s rights of imposing integration v the child rights if the child experiences specialized teaching; the legal implications of imposing new teaching methods and integration; and ethical considerations.
The method of enquiry is as follows examining the problems and benefits of mainstream integration for all children, which may be exacerbated if the child is suffering from Dyspraxia. Then it considers the teaching methods that mainstream integration may utilize. Finally it will consider some of the legal, ethical and social problems of such integration; whereby a duty is imposed by the state to use teaching methods to integrate children into mainstream education at the foundation level curriculum. One also must consider the effects of these teaching methods on the children without the learning disability and the effects and possible additional stress on the teacher. This leads to considerations and consequences in the areas of human rights, the law and ethics will be the focus of the discussion.
The results point to that as long as the appropriate teaching methods are being applied then integration is the best solution. Yet if the education system is degrading as the following proponents of home schooling advance then it is not in the best interests of the child to integrate at the foundation level because this essential to the whole of the child’s educational future. The methods range from the simple, i.e. more attention, patience to aiding with reading and other methods of expression to the more technological, i.e. special computers, tape recordings and machines.
The problem lies in whether the teacher can get these specialized technologies or has the time to spend extra time with a specific child. This may have a detrimental effect on the other children in the class; however if this special attention is not given then the child will be restricted and hindered and the most foundational years and methods of learning have been lost. This would then lead to the support of specialized teaching that home schoolers purport. The following discussion will explore this further.
Integrating the child in the foundation level of education may or may not be beneficial to the child as it may hinder the long-term education of the child. Therefore prior to exploring the teaching strategies necessary to integrate children with Dyspraxia in the foundation level of the national curriculum, because if these teaching methods hinder the child’s development then the teaching strategies have failed. In order to do this the literature surrounding the benefits of mainstream education, over specialized or home-schooling will be explored in the following discussion.
Human beings have been sharing information and skills, and passing along to children whatever they knew, for about a thousand years now. Along the way they have built some very complicated and highly skilled societies. During all those years there were very few teachers in the sense of people whose only work was teaching others what they knew. And until very recently there were no people at all who were trained in teaching as such. People always understood, sensibly enough, that before you could teach something you had to know it yourself. But only very recently did human beings get the extraordinary notion that in order to be able to teach what you knew; you had to spend years being taught how to teach .
Holt is an ardent believer in home schooling and proposes it has no effect on social development; rather it is a better method because it teaches children the reality of life, i.e. the juggling lifestyle with work and learning. In fact Holt proposes that it is the void of institutionalism of education that impedes social development . In addition Holt argues that home study teaches children about individualism and enhances their respect and understanding and human rights . However there are critics of Holt’s proposal and argue that such schooling teaches children that their individual needs are more important than the larger society and impedes the goals of democracy.
Yet a question of social development in the modern world is inherently tied into children’s understanding of human rights and respect for the individuals; as well as adherence to law and governance in respect to promoting a civil society. However if home schooling was eliminated then the rights of the individual would be ignored and a move towards institutionalism and a void like understanding of humanity and social development would be created. Also if one connects such arguments to the essence of humanity, the best method for education and development of one’s intellect should be followed, which is an objective goal.
Also the argument from Franzosa is purely a westernized view of education and the combating views of democracy and individualism may not be appropriate in all cultures. Therefore this causes one to refer to cultural relativism, but as the previous argument shows individualism and human rights are present in all cultures. In short home schooling can aid children to respect and promote individualism and human rights within the context of their culture, rather than the objective, anti-social institutions of modern education. The problems of the anti-social system will be highlighted in the following discussions; as well as illustrating the problems with the development of children socially.
This has resulted in a situation where; children are intimidated and bullied by other children’s anti-social behaviour; children lose the value of learning and the promotion of their intellect; parents become criminally liable for their children’s truancy even if they take all reasonable steps to promote attendance; children take guns into school and murder their peers on the masses; children are not taught to respect other’s human rights because these rights are eroded by the institution they attend; cultural learning and religion is eroded by a so called value-neutral approach, which in fact promotes westernized ideals; and the fairness and justice do not play apart in this institution. Therefore maybe Holt is right in his promotion of home schooling as an effective remedy for the problems in children’s social development. Franzosa argues that this argument is too simplified and a more complex, multifaceted approach to institutional education is necessary.
Holt’s advocacy of a single solution to the multiplicity of problems we now face in education is naïve and misleading. Further, the social thesis he uses to support that solution signifies a retreat from any collective consideration of educational ideals and a dismissal of the idea that communities have any educational responsibilities to their members. Rights are an especially problematic notion in the context of education. Thus within the framework of European Community law, the assertion of individual "rights" for the purposes of enforcement of obligations contained in Directives appears to be heavily constrained. Likewise, "human rights" perspectives introduced into UK domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998 are likely to have a limited impact in the educational context’. Rights in the context of the home schoolers have always been a source of contention between those advocating the right to choose home school and the law makers.
To understand the fundamental principles of human rights one must look at the period surrounding the Enlightenment because this is the time when the individual became an important entity, no longer was the individual part of a class on a hierarchical structure, with rights relating to that class. The natural rights theorists aim was to show that man was born in a state of nature, and given the right to do as he/she wished as in accordance with the sanctity of human life, but this was sacrificed to the governance of the land, i.e. that the rational man would give up the state of freedom, for the security and safety of law, governance and sovereignty .
Kant’s argument, which is more commonly known as Kant’s ethic , tries to get away from the needs, desires and wants, which are the basis of the rights from the state of nature. Instead it is an a priori ethic, which transcends all needs, desires, wants, purposes and end. In other words it is not part of human construction. In modern theories there are different strands of this Kantian argument; however they all base round a transcendental need for the autonomous nature of the individual to be free in society.
Dworkin notion of human rights is as trumps; his theory will now be discussed in further detail. The basis for Dworkin’s endorsement of human rights is that every government must ensure that its citizens are given equality of respect and concern. Therefore the end of Dworkin’s means (of respect and concern) is basic human rights and freedoms. If the government does not have the means then there is no valid argument for these basic rights and freedoms in the framework of Dworkin’s theory.
This theory unlike McDougal’s argument from dignity is not individualistic but in a more utilitarian frame and hence is promoting the general welfare of the society and focuses on the essence of personhood. Dworkin main focus is on the sanctity of the essence of the human life as the key factor for governmental protection. Therefore the quality of life can be sacrificed to ensure that every human life in the state is protected by the government.
Dworkin does not champion the vague aspiration of liberty but more specific rights, such as the freedoms provided for in human rights treaties and conventions, e.g., speech, assembly, freedom, religion… These freedoms are the core to Dworkin’s theory and cannot be interfered with by the government; these rights are essential to ensure the general welfare of the society. Dworkin’s reasoning for not allowing government intervention is to ensure equal respect and concern; one must take into account external preferences that cause inequality, hence resulting in prejudice and discrimination that naturally arise in a modern multi-cleavaged society.
Therefore to ensure these preferences do not override the general welfare of the society and individual’s welfare certain key rights and the government, which in reality will reflect the majority not the minorities of society, cannot interfere with freedoms. Dworkin’s theory seems to encompass and amalgamate freedoms and rights with both autonomy and the general welfare of the society, which seems to incorporate ideas that the modern society wants to include without sacrificing one to other. Yet Dworkin purports universal human rights, stemming from respect and concern for others; which forms the base-line of his theory.
Theorists such as McDougal who believe that human rights are the ends of ensuring human dignity and worth and important to ensure that co-operation in the society is in the aid of dignity and human rights. The theorists have made a list of basic rights, needs and demands to ensure this dignity; however the top needs are respect, power, autonomy… These are the basic rights and freedoms that other human rights theories are aiming for. However this argument is not far from the core rights theorists, natural rights theorists and even the argument from justice and open to their criticisms. Also the form and lists of the elements and concept of dignity as described is based in a European religious beliefs and even the secular arguments have the tone of a Eurocentric belief system. However dignity is a concept in all cultures.
Therefore as a parent of a child they should have the right to choose the method of development and the attaining perfection, i.e. knowledge. It should not be the government’s determination but the parent’s in the case of a young child
Modern utilitarian theorists have extended the theory of Bentham, but have put it in more modern terms. Instead of maximising the pleasures and desires of the individual the government would be maximising the general welfare of individuals therefore minimising frustration of wants and preferences .
Therefore what one can see is that the governing bodies must put the general welfare first, yet minimise the individual’s needs – therefore causing a conflict of rights between what is in the name of the society and what the individual wants. The problems with this theory is it is socially constructed, there is no autonomy of being and no argument for universal rights that transcend all cultures and religions, therefore falling short of what is needed for an all-encompassing human rights theory, as the general welfare can be different for differing cultures.
Rawl’s in his thesis for engendering human rights states that justice is the prime basis of all government and to ensure justice human rights are the obvious means and end to ensure justice is fulfilled. Rawl’s theory is based on a few key ideas, which are the rights and duties of government/institution of society and the burdens and benefits of citizens co-operating. Rawls bases his theory that each individual has an inherent and inviolable being set in justice – this being cannot be overridden for the welfare of the society. This theory does not fall foul to the arguments against modern utilitarianism. Rawl’s does use the social contract fiction of Hobbes and Locke, however the basis of moving from ignorance (state of nature) is reason and this reason set up on principles of justice that his social contract is based upon. These principles are; 1) that each person has basic rights and liberties in accordance with freedom; and 2) there is distributive justice, where inequalities are restrained by the greatest benefit of least advantaged and each person has the condition of fair equality of opportunity. These principles cannot be derogated for the public good and liberty is the supreme principle.
Therefore the parent should only have a limited right to choose if the welfare of the child and future social development is threatened, i.e. the government should step in and regulate the choice between home schooling and education in an institution. This means if the better option of education is in an institution then home schooling should be denied.
The third part of Article 3 of the ECHR is protection from degrading treatment/punishment: Starmer describes this as ‘degrading if it arouses in the victim a feeling of fear, inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing the victim and possibly breaking his/her physical or moral resistance.
In order for punishment to be degrading and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved must attain a particular level of severity and must in any event be other than that usual element of humiliation inherent in any punishment . This area is where cases are decided upon their facts and can include; racial harassment , corporal punishment ; gross remarks that are defaming ; and police surveillance that borders on the extreme and unrelenting ; not allowing a person to change their clothes which have been dirtied by their own defecation ; and insufficient medical treatment for a serious illness . Also in these cases the vulnerability of the victim is essential, because if they are weaker in any manner this reduces the minimum standard to that class of persons .
In the present era of bullying and intimidation of some children at school, parents have turned to protecting their child by removing them from institutions and educating them at home. This has been further the case since intimidation at schools is on the rise and the availability of punishment of trouble makers has been limited. The extent to which the school system is in crisis is that anti-social behavior orders can be made in schools and parents are becoming liable civilly and criminally for their child’s truancy and behavior at school.
Therefore this presents an effective argument for parent’s to home school in order for their children to attain knowledge and perfection, without the fear and intimidation that occurs at the hands of the less respectable members of the school community. In short do we want to possibly further hinder the community of children with Dyspraxia, without giving specialized teaching at the foundation level in order for integration to be complete.
The above discussion has illustrated the problems with the current institutional system; as well as covering important concepts concerning development, such as the achievement of intellect and the cultural aspects of development. The current education system is the root of problems in respect to social development; therefore home schooling is regarded as an appropriate remedy. However such action is not appropriate for all families, which creates major implications for the future of children’s social development, i.e. creating a system where individuals are not respected and a totalitarian view of governance is the only method.
As well as a place of possible fear for pupils and teachers and discipline is limited to a point where the parents become civilly and criminally liable for their children’s actions. Therefore creating a system that will overload and education, learning and social development is no longer an enjoyment; rather it is a chore forced upon individuals in a void, without the influences of cultural and religious learning. In short there needs to be an upheaval of the current system in order to promote other avenues for effective social development, which combines the large social integration with the principles that Holt proposes that home schooling brings to the child’s development. This is because Holt’s view is too simplistic, which is also the view of the current educational system and possibly the reason that children’s social development is broken down:
Franzosa focuses on Holt’s view of the "irreconcilable conflict between the natural individual [child] and the oppressive and corrupting effects of organized social life" …What Franzosa identifies in Holt is in fact a romantic individualism that is as much a part of American thought as it is incompatible with social democratic theory… These polarities of the individual good and the good of all that Franzosa identifies in Holt’s work take us to the heart of a tension that defines the public school system and many of the debates about it.
One also has to consider whether it is affecting the social development of the child because to be taken out of the social structure of mainstream education at the lowest levels and then to integrate at a higher level may have long-standing effects on the child’s social development especially with respect to bullying. This may create a void in the child’s life. Also if one refers back to the basic idea that the Dyspraxia Association of New Zealand purported is:
If you treat the child the same as the others, his failure rate will be immeasurably higher than it needs to be. He knows that he is not the same; a higher failure rate means a very much lower self esteem, etc., etc
If there is no availability of modifications then the home schooler’s argument is right; however the Dyspraxia Association of New Zealand is purporting integration but modifications provided by the teachers. This is to allow the child to learn to cope and integrate with the so called normal populace, which is important for foundational social development. Therefore the government should be providing and enforcing the resources and techniques for dealing with Dyspraxic children in the same way that they enforce the modifications for disabled persons in the work place.
The regulations incorporated into the DDA 1995 in 2003 have gone further than inclusion of the excluded sectors it also gives legal rights from harassment, practical work placements and prohibition of disability discrimination. One must note that this better than the 1995 Act, however it only marginally equalizes the playing field with other disadvantaged groups such as women and it has been recognized that substantive rights are necessary. The government is suggesting a Draft Discrimination Disability Bill which will extend civil rights to disabled persons; however the problem with this approach are that disabled persons are citizens therefore should be extended the civil rights of citizens, but the government feels it is necessary to extend disabled persons civil rights? This is a very confusing prospect, because it means that disabled persons are not citizens or that they are lesser citizens such as children, which is wrong and should be equalized in the education system; especially in respect to ensuring that the appropriate level of education is enforced for children such as those with Dyspraxia.
It is not enough to have possible teaching methods that conclude integration at the foundation level is possible because they may be ignored or used incorrectly. There should be a legal requirement to enforce these modifications if it is impossible then specialized teaching with slow integration should be advanced. In order to this substantive rights should be provided to these disabled children. In this sense it is necessary to advance substantive rights to these groups which properly level the playing field rather than affording rights which already are present as has been suggested by Ratna Kapur and Brenda Cossman:
[Substantive equality] takes into account inequalities of social, economic and educational background of people and seeks the elimination of existing inequalities by positive measures… The central enquiry of this approach is whether the rule or practice in question contributes to the subordination of the disadvantaged group. Accordingly discrimination consists of the treatment of disadvantages or further oppresses a group that has historically experienced institutional and systemic oppression.
Therefore as the Learning Disabilities Association of America argue integration into the mainstream will provide children with disabilities, at the foundation level and beyond a balanced educational and social development as long as basic principles are applied; as well as intense educational methods which are reduced as the child’s expression of comprehension develops and improves. The basic techniques are similar to the Dyspraxia Association of New Zealand’s approach, where the Learning Disabilities Association of America advises of the following techniques to teaching children with learning disabilities and the classroom as a whole:
Figure Two – Learning Techniques for Children with Learning Disabilites:
a. broke learning into small steps;
b. administered probes;
c. supplied regular quality feedback;
d. used diagrams, graphics and pictures to augment what they were saying in words;
e. provided ample independent, well-designed, intensive practice;
f. modeled instructional practices that they wanted students to follow;
g. provided prompts of strategies to use; and
h. engaged students in process type questions like “How is that strategy working? Where else might you apply it?”
Dyspraxia and Teaching:
Australian Dyspraxia Support Group
Dyspraxia Association of New Zealand, Teaching,
Belinda Hill, Technological Aides and Children with DVD, can be found at the Dyspraxia Foundation of Ireland
Learning Disabilities Association of America, Teachers,
Human Rights Theory:
Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights, (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002)
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, (Hackett, Indianapolis, 1987) ed. J.G.A. Pocock
Edmund Cahn, The Sense of Injustice, An Anthropological View of the Law, (NY University Press, NY, 1949)
J. Donnelly, The Concept of Human Rights, 1985 International Organization 40(3) 599-642
Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, (Duckworth, London, 1978)
T. Evans, The Politics of Human Rights, (Pluto Press, London. 2001)
Michael Freeman, Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach, (Polity Press, Cambridge, 2002)
C.J. Harvey, Gender, Refugee Law and the Politics of Interpretation, IJRL 2000 12(680)
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Of the First and Second Natural Laws, and of Contracts excerpts from Ed. Joseph Losco & Leonard Williams, Political Theory: Classical Writings, Contemporary Views, (St. Martins Press, New York, 1992)
Peter Jones, Rights: Issues in Political Theory, (Palgrave, Basingstoke, 1994)
Ed. Jeffrey Jowell & Jonathan Cooper, Understanding Human Rights
Principles, (Hart Publishing, Oregon, 2001)
Michael Ignatieff, Human Rights: As Politics and Idolatry, (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2001)
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals in H. Paton(ed.) The Moral Law (Hutchinson, London, 1948)
John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government , excerpts from Ed. Joseph Losco & Leonard Williams, Political Theory: Classical Writings, Contemporary Views, (St. Martins Press, New York, 1992)
Ed. Joseph Losco & Leonard Williams, Political Theory: Classical Writings, Contemporary Views, (St. Martins Press, New York, 1992)
Margaret MacDonald, Natural Rights, in P. Laslett (ed.) Philosophy, Politics and Society, (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1963)
M.S. McDougal, H.D Lasswell & L.C. Chen, Human Rights and World Public Order (Yale University Press, New Haven Conn., 1980)
John-Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract, Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality Among Men excerpts from Ed. Joseph Losco & Leonard Williams, Political Theory: Classical Writings, Contemporary Views, (St. Martins Press, New York, 1992)
Alastair Mowbray, Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, (Butterworths, London, 2001)
Andreas Pretzell & Dr. Constantin Hruschka, In Search of a Universal Definition of Human Rights in the Context of the Dublin Convention, IANL 2002 16(2)
Shestack, The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights from Ed. Janusz Symonides, Human Rights: Concepts and Standards, (UNESCO Publishing, Aldershot, 2000)
Keir Starmer, European Human Rights Law: The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, (Legal Action Group, London, 2000)
Ed. Janusz Symonides, Human Rights: Concepts and Standards, (UNESCO Publishing, Aldershot, 2000)
John Rawls, The Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971)
WW Cook (1919) Hohfeld’s Contribution to the Science of Law, 28 Yale Law Journal
Kapur R & Cossman B, 1996, Familial Ideology and the Constitution in Subversive Sites: Feminist Engagements with Law in India, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA
R. Dworkin (1977) Taking Rights Seriously London, Duckworth
Helen Fenwick (2002), Civil Liberties and Human Rights, London, Cavendish
PMS Hacker and J Raz (eds) (1977a) Law Morality and Society, (Oxford, Clarendon Press)
Andrew Halpin, DPhil (1997), Rights and Law: Analysis and Theory, Oxford, Hart
HLA Hart (1982) Legal Rights in HLA Hart Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Oxford, Clarendon Press
T Hobbes (1991) Leviathan (edited Richard Tuck) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Wesley N. Hohfeld (1923) Fundamental Legal Conceptions: as applied in judicial reasoning (ed WW Cook) New Haven, Yale University Press
Wesley N. Hohfeld (2001), Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, Aldershot, Ashgate
AM Honore (1960) Rights of Exclusion and Immunities against Divesting, 34 Tulane Law Review
Walter Kamba (1974) Legal Theory and Hohfeld’s Analysis of a Legal Right, 19 Judicial Review 249
I Kant (2003) Critique of Pure Reason (Translated by Norman Kemp Smith) 2nd Edition Basingstoke, Palgrave
Matthew H. Kramer (1998), A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries, Oxford, Clarendon
Matthew H. Kramer Rights Without Trimmings, in Matthew H. Kramer (1998), A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries, Oxford, Clarendon
W Kymlicka (1989) Liberalism, Community and Culture Oxford, Oxford University Press
W Kymlicka (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy: an Introduction (2nd Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press
J. Locke (1698), The Second Treatise of Government
DN MacCormick, Rights in Legislation in PMS Hacker and J Raz (eds) (1977) Law Morality and Society, Oxford, Clarendon Press
C MacKinnon (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State Harvard Mass, Harvard University Press
James Penner (1997a) The Analysis of Rights 10 Ratio Juris
James Penner (1997b) Hohfeldian Use-Rights in Property in JW Harris (ed) Property Problems: From Genes to Pension Funds, London, Kluwer
James Penner (1997c) The Idea of Property Law Oxford, Clarendon Press
Eds. James Penner, David Schiff & Richard Nobles (2002), Jurisprudence & Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials, London, Butterworths – LexisNexis
J. Rawls (1973) A Theory of Justice, Oxford, Clarendon
Joseph Raz, (1972) Voluntary Obligations and Normative Powers – an essay in two parts by Joseph Raz and DN MacCormick, 46 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Supplement Volume 59
Joseph Raz (1975) Practical Reason and Norms London, Hutchinson
Joseph Raz (1984) Legal Rights 4 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
Joseph Raz (1988) The Morality of Freedom Oxford, Clarendon Press
H. Ross (2001a) Law as Social Institution Oxford, Hart Publishing
H. Ross (2001) Social Power and the Hohfeldian Relation 10(1) Nottingham Law Journal
N.E. Simmonds (1984) The Decline of Juridicial Reason, Manchester, Manchester University Press
N. E. Simmonds (1986), Central Issues in Jurisprudence: Justice, Law and Rights, London, Sweet & Maxwell
N. E. Simmonds, Rights at the Cutting Edge (Matthew H. Kramer (1998) A Debate Over Rights, Oxford, Clarendon
J.W. Singer (1982) The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld, Wisconsin Law Review
R. Crompton & K, Sanderson (1990) Gendered Jobs & Social Change, London, Unwin Hyman
R. Fevre (1992) The Sociology of Labour Markets, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf
P. Craig, G. De Burca (1999) The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press
C.R. Munro (1999) Studies in Constitutional Law (Second Edition), London, Butterworths
NM Selwyn (2000) Selwyn’s Law of Employment (11th Edition), London, Butterworths
IT Smith & GH Thomas (2000) Smith & Woods Industrial Law (7th Edition), London, Butterworths
Josephine Steiner & Lorna Woods, Textbook on EC Law, ( Blackstone Press, Gosport Hants, 2001)
United Nations Economic and Social Council (2003) National and International Co-operation for Social Development: Impact of Employment Strategies on Social Development, Commission for Social Development 41st Session 10-21st February 2003
UN, Employment Policy Convention; Convention (No 122) concerning employment policy 1964, Article 1
Worldwatch Institute (2004) State of World 2004: Progress Towards a Sustainable Society, London, Earthscan
Barton L, 1996, Disability and Society Longmen
Brading,J and Curtis J, 2000, Disability Discrimination 2nd ed. Kogan
Davis J, 2003 ACuckoo in the nest? A ‘Range of reasonable responses’, justification and the disability discrimination act 1995 in Bowers J. QC,
Moran E. and Honeyball S, 2003 Justification Indirect Sex Discrimnation: A reply
Davis P, EC. Equality and diversity: The way ahead Vol29. No .4.
Doyle,B, 2003, Disability discrimination: law and practise 4th ed.
Doyle B Disabled Workers’ Right, and Disability Discrimiantion Act and the UN Standard Rules Industrial Law Journal Vol31.No2.
Drake,R Understanding Disability Policies MacMillian 1999.
McAuley R & Knight L. Discrimination law enabling disabled applicants ELJ 2003 42
Phillips G, 2000, Disability Round up Part 2 " Employers 2003, 107
Thompson’s Solicitors, 1999, A Patent Case of Disability, Thompson’s Journal Issue 31
Thompson’s Solicitors, 2000, Disabled in the Soup with Insipid Justification Test, Thompson’s Journal Issue 45
Home Schooling and Integration Problems:
DfES Higher Education Website
DfES Parent Centre Website
DfES, Parenting Orders
Dworkin R. Rights as Trumps, in J Waldron Theories of Rights, (1984, New York, Oxford University Press)
Dworkin R. Taking Rights Seriously, (1977, London, Duckworth)
H. Fenwick, 2002, Civil Liberties and Human Rights (3rd Edition), London, Cavendish
J. Finnis (1982) Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford, Clarendon
E. Fortin (1987) St Thomas Aquinas in L. Strauss & J. Cropsey (eds) History of Political Philosophy, Chicago, Chicago University Press
Susan Douglas Franzosa, 1991, The Best and the Wisest Parent: A Critique of John Holt’s Philosophy of Education, Home Schooling: Political, Historical, and Pedagogical Perspectives. Eds. Van Galen and Pittman. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1991, pp. 123
M, Freeman, 2002, Human Rights, Cambridge, Polity
T. Gilby (1958) The Political Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, Chicago, Chicago University Press
E. Gilson (1957) The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, London, Victor Gollancz Ltd
HMSO, 2004, Explanatory Notes to the Higher Education Act 2004
John Holt, 1981, Teach Your Own: A Hopeful Path For Education. New York, N.Y. : Delacorte Press/ Seymour Lawrence
M. Ignatieff, 2001, Human Rights, Princeton, Princeton University Press
C. Luke, Home Schooling – Learning from Dissent
M. Jefferson, 2001, Criminal Law (5th Edition), Harlow, England, Longman Publishing
P. Jones, 1994, Rights, Basingstoke Hamps, Palgrave
Jowell, Cooper, 2001, Understanding Human Rights Principles, Oxford, Hart Publishing
Middlesex University Human Resources, Equal Opportunities Statement can be found on the Middlesex University’s
Middlesex University Regulations
S. Millns, N. Whitty, 1999, Feminist Perspectives on Public Law, London, Cavendish Publishing
Morton, J, 1994, A Guide to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 London: Butterworths
A. Mowbray, 2001, Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, London, Butterworths
C.R. Munro, 1999, Studies in Constitutional Law, London, Butterworths
J. Pieper (1962) A Guide to Thomas Aquinas, New York, Pantheon
E. Shorts, C. de Than, 2001, Human Rights in the UK, London, Sweet & Maxwell
P. Singer (ed) (1986) Applied Ethics, Oxford, Oxford University Press
P. Singer (1993) Practical Ethics (2nd Edition), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
G. Slapper, D. Kelly, 1999, The English Legal System (4th Edition), London, Cavendish Publishing
J.C. Smith, 1999, Smith & Hogan: Criminal Law (9th Edition), London, Butterworths
Keir Starmer, 2002, European Human Rights Law: The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, London, Legal Action Group
Josephine Steiner & Lorna Woods (2001) Textbook on EC Law (7th Ed), London, Blackstone Press
R. Stone, 2002, Textbook on Civil Liberties & Human Rights (4th Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press
J. Symonides, 2000, Human Rights: Concept and Standards, Aldershot, Unesco Publishing
Eds. Van Galen and Pittman, 1991, Home Schooling: Political, Historical, and Pedagogical Perspectives.. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing,
J. Wadham & H. Mountfield, 2001, Human Rights Act 1998 (2nd Edition), London, Blackstone
Stephen Weatherill (2000) Cases & Materials on EC Law (5th Ed), London, Blackstone Press
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper