Добірка наукової літератури з теми "National Commission on Special Education Needs and Training (NCSNET)"

The paper presents an overview of study felds at universities in the Czech Republic, which are aimed at achieving the qualifcations required for the performance of educational professions, respectively educational roles. The fundamental differentiation criterion is their main focus on one of the aspects of complex education, specifcally education and upbringing. Professions of an educator, special and social pedagogue or a leisure time teacher are considered to be the professions predominantly focused on education. University education for the previously stated occupational subgroups implemented so far is built on study programs that have been created by teams of academic staff and accredited by the Accreditation Commission. They are usually based on the erudition and personal experience of their authors and assessors and without any professional standards. The amendment to the University Education Act has fundamentally changed both the procedures for the accreditation of study programs and the functioning of the newly established accreditation institution — the National Accreditation Ofce. The study introduces the legal standards applicable to accreditation procedures as well as the fundamental changes in functioning of universities due to these rules. Apart from that, the curriculum design includes current education and training practices with a number of national (both positive and negative) characteristics and oddities identifed on the basis of the (inter)national research, analysis, monitoring or good practice. Today´s educational reality is the result of the involvement of stakeholders who reflect it critically in terms of their expectations and needs. They provide feedback to universities necessary for the innovations of graduate profles, the aims and content of their studies and the future educators´ teaching and learning processes. With regard to the implementation of the national digital education strategy, the possibilities of universities to respond to its objectives by preparing new subjects for teacher education are mentioned.

<p>The art of medical writing and science of scientific publishing has made tremendous progress during the last two decades. The revolution in information technology while on one hand has brought lot of ease and benefits, it has also created tremendous pressure and problems for the medial editors who are trying to come up to the expectations of authors who are very keen to see their manuscript published soon after submission.^1,2</p><p>     One can be a good physician or a good surgeon but it does not mean that he/she can also be a good Editor as one has to learn this art. That is why starting with the International Committee of Medial Journal Editors (ICMJE)^3,4 which was formed in 1978 and later World Association of Medical Editors formed in 1995⁵ have been working to improve the professional skills of medial editors by regularly organizing conferences, Hands on Workshops as well as seminars to train the editors. Their websites offer lot of useful information and training material. American Medial Writers Association (AMWA),⁶ European Medical Writers Association (EMWA)⁷ and European Association of Science Editors (EASE)⁸ founded in 1982 have also been doing a commendable job helping the authors and researchers. They too organize their annual conferences and training workshops on regular basis. Then came the various regional bodies like Eastern Mediterranean Association of Medical Editors (EMAME) and Asia – Pacific Association of Medial Editors (APAME) which have been busy in promoting the discipline of medical journalism in their respective regions.^9,10 Numerous countries in these regions have also formed their own associations of medical journal editors to improve the professional capacity of their member editors in their respective countries. Pakistan which had taken an active part in establishing the EMAME in 2003 did not lag behind and established Pakistan Association of Medial Editors (PAME) in 2010. Since then it has not only hosted EMMJ5 Medical Journals Conference in 2010 which was attended by thirty four foreign delegates and guest speakers from eighteen countries but has also organized three national conferences and a large number of Hands on Workshops all over the country.¹¹</p><p>     PAME organized training course for medical journal editors at Karachi on July 14, 2012, at PIMS Islamabad on September 15, 2012, at Khyber Medical University at Peshawar in Khyber KPK on September 16, 2012 and at University of Health Sciences Lahore on April 25, 2013. PAME organized yet another training course for medical journal editors at University of Health Sciences Lahore on March 4-5^th 2016. All this was aimed at to build up the professional capacity of editors of biomedical journals published from Pakistan.</p><p>     Journalology has now emerged as an important discipline with numerous subspecialties. Publishing a good quality peer reviewed journal is an uphill task which requires a team work. Publishing a medical journal is not economically viable for many institutions and organizations. The problems are further compounded with the non-availability of good Peer Reviewers, willing and interested Editorial Board Members which play a vital role in improving the contents and quality of a journal. If this was not all, the issues like plagiarism, scientific misconduct and upholding professional ethics has made the job of the editors more difficult. Institutions like Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) UK has come up with very informative Flow Charts to guide the editors on dealing with scientific misconduct including plagiarism, duplicate and redundant publication etc., but it has not made the life of medical journal editors easy.¹²It is extremely important that one should opt for professionalism, seeks help and assistance from the respective government institutions, organizations to find a solution to the various problems with the medical journal editors are facing. It was in this context that PAME in its Third National Conference held at UHS Lahore from April 1 – 2, 2016 had devoted a special session to  “Professionalism and Medical Journal Editors” where representatives of Higher Education Commission (HEC) and Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&amp;DC) were also invited. However, it was unfortunate that none of them came to attend the meeting thus deprived themselves to update on latest developments and problems faced by Editors.</p><p>     Some of the issues concerning both these institutions which were highlighted during the conference were as under:</p><p> <strong>Pakistan Medical and Dental Council</strong></p><ol><li>Its website is not updated regularly.<ol><li>List of PM&amp;DC recognized journals is not update and lacks lot of information and there is no mention of Publication Ethics.</li><li>There is a communication gap between the PM&amp; DC and the Editors. Not enough time is given when asking for some documents or holding meeting of Journals Evaluation Committee.</li><li>Communications sent to the PM&amp;DC remain unanswered and it makes no differentiation between those journals who fulfill all the requirements, are published regularly and those who do not follow the laid down criteria.</li><li>Communications received from the Journals Committee of PM&amp;DC from time to time have a threatening tone and they need to show respect to the Editors.</li><li>PM&amp;DC wants the journals to submit plagiarism report but provides no help or assistance to the journals in this regard.</li></ol></li></ol><p> <strong>Higher Education Commission</strong></p><ol><li>Communications received from Quality Assurance Department regarding meeting of Journal Evaluation Committee does not give enough time.</li><li>In the past HEC used to provide the facility of checking manuscripts for plagiarism using the Turnitin software but now it has been restricted to medical universities only.</li><li>HEC website is also not updated regularly.<ol><li>Communication gap between the HEC and Medial Journal Editors also needs improvement.</li></ol></li></ol><p>     It will be unfair not to mention the generous grant the Higher Education Commission has been providing to its recognized biomedical journals for the last many years but it will be much better if it is replaced by providing much needed services and software facilities.</p><p>     Pakistan Association of Medical Editors with its meager resources has been doing a commendable job to help improve the professional capacity of Editors through various ways. Its website also contains some useful material for the training of the new editors.¹¹ Regulatory bodies like PM&amp;DC and HEC working in close collaboration with PAME can work wonders and go a long way in improving the standard of biomedical journals published from Pakistan. Commission on Iranian Medical Journals based in Ministry of Health in Islamic Republic of Iran apart from providing financial assistance also provides software for checking plagiarism, helps the journal in preparing their websites, helps them provide facilities of XML which has helped a large number of Iranian Medical Journals to go to PubMed Central and has thus increased their visibility and readership manifold. The number of medical journals published from Iran was ninety in 2005 which has now increased to over four hundred. Seventy two of these Iranian Medical Journals are visible on PubMed, PubMed Central and Medline while twenty are covered by ISI Thompson Reuter known for Impact Factor.¹³ On the contrary only about half a dozen medical journals from Pakistan are covered by Medline, PubMed and PubMed Central and only four medical journals from Pakistan has an Impact Factor.¹⁴</p><p>     Our regulatory bodies can learn from Iran and that is what the HEC should be doing in Pakistan. Instead of offering any financial grants it can better utilize the same resources to provide facilities for checking plagiarism, software to prepare XML files for submission to PubMed Central, organizing training workshops for Editors and support staff on Open Journal System, electronic publishing, peer review, publication ethics etc. PAME has the professional capacity to help PM&amp;DC and HEC to realize these objectives. What is missing is the proper liaison and understanding between Medical Journal Editors and these regulatory bodies like PM&amp; DC and HEC. A study presented at the PAME Third National Conference by the author had also heighted some basic and serious deficiencies in the journals which are recognized by PM&amp;DC as well as HEC because the members of their respective Journal Evaluation Committees are not fully conversant with the latest developments in the field of medical journalism. These committees need to be further strengthened by inducting competent, knowledgeable professional editors and PAME has time and again offered its help and assistance in this regard. Even once the PM&amp;DC had also issued a notification making PAME President an exoffico member of the Journals Evaluation Committee but no meeting was ever held.¹⁵</p><p>     To improve the present situation and find a workable, feasible, practical solution to the various problems being faced by the medical journal editors in Pakistan is not an uphill task. The objective of every one, the editors and regulatory bodies like PM&amp;DC and HEC are the same i.e. improvement in the quality of contents, standard of medical journals so that we can increase our contribution to the world medical literature and promote research culture in Pakistan. Intentions of everyone are good but what is lacking is cooperation, coordination and bridging the communication gap. It is never too late and let us makes a new beginning in our relationship. The role of the regulatory bodies is to facilitate and not to create hurdles and discourage those who are working under difficult circumstances with meager resources and facilities available.</p>

Critique of Ability In July 2008, we could be on the eve of an enormously important shift in disability in Australia. One sign of change is the entry into force on 3 May 2008 of the United Nations convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will now be adopted by the Rudd Labor government. Through this, and other proposed measures, the Rudd government has indicated its desire for a seachange in the area of disability. Bill Shorten MP, the new Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services has been at pains to underline his commitment to a rights-based approach to disability. In this inaugural speech to Parliament, Senator Shorten declared: I believe the challenge for government is not to fit people with disabilities around programs but for programs to fit the lives, needs and ambitions of people with disabilities. The challenge for all of us is to abolish once and for all the second-class status that too often accompanies Australians living with disabilities. (Shorten, “Address in reply”; see also Shorten, ”Speaking up”) Yet if we listen to the voices of people with disability, we face fundamental issues of justice, democracy, equality and how we understand the deepest aspects of ourselves and our community. This is a situation that remains dire and palpably unjust, as many people with disabilities have attested. Elsewhere I have argued (Goggin and Newell) that disability constitutes a systemic form of exclusion and othering tantamount to a “social apartheid” . While there have been improvements and small gains since then, the system that reigns in Australia is still fundamentally oppressive. Nonetheless, I would suggest that through the rise of the many stranded movements of disability, the demographic, economic and social changes concerning impairment, we are seeing significant changes in how we understand impairment and ability (Barnes, Oliver and Barton; Goggin and Newell, Disability in Australia; Snyder, Brueggemann, and Garland-Thomson; Shakespeare; Stiker). There is now considerable, if still incomplete, recognition of disability as a category that is constituted through social, cultural, and political logics, as well as through complex facets of impairment, bodies (Corker and Shakespeare), experiences, discourses (Fulcher), and modes of materiality and subjectivity (Butler), identity and government (Tremain). Also there is growing awareness of the imbrication of disability and other categories such as sex and gender (Fine and Asch; Thomas), race, age, culture, class and distribution of wealth (Carrier; Cole; Davis, Bending over Backwards, and Enforcing Normalcy; Oliver; Rosenblum and Travis), ecology and war (Bourke; Gerber; Muir). There are rich and wide-ranging debates that offer fundamental challenges to the suffocating grip of the dominant biomedical model of disability (that conceives disability as individual deficit — for early critiques see: Borsay; Walker), as well as the still influential and important (if at times limiting) social model of disability (Oliver; Barnes and Mercer; Shakespeare). All in all,there have been many efforts to transform the social and political relations of disability. If disability has been subject to considerable examination, there has not yet been an extended, concomitant critique of ability. Nor have we witnessed a thoroughgoing recognition of unmarked, yet powerful operations of ability in our lives and thought, and the potential implications of challenging these. Certainly there have been important attempts to reframe the relationship between “ability” and “disability” (for example, see Jones and Mark). And we are all familiar with the mocking response to some neologisms that seek to capture this, such as the awkward yet pointed “differently-abled.” Despite such efforts we lack still a profound critique of ability, an exploration of “able”, the topic that this special issue invites us to consider. If we think of the impact and significance of “whiteness”, as a way to open up space for how to critically think about and change concepts of race; or of “masculinity” as a project for thinking about gender and sexuality — we can see that this interrogation of the unmarked category of “able” and “ability” is much needed (for one such attempt, see White). In this paper I would like to make a small contribution to such a critique of ability, by considering what the concept of innovation and its contemporary rhetorics have to offer for reframing disability. Innovation is an important discourse in contemporary life. It offers interesting possibilities for rethinking ability — and indeed disability. And it is this relatively unexplored prospect that this paper seeks to explore. Beyond Access, Equity & Diversity In this scene of disability, there is attention being given to making long over-due reforms. Yet the framing of many of these reforms, such as the strengthening of national and international legal frameworks, for instance, also carry with them considerable problems. Disability is too often still seen as something in need of remediation, or special treatment. Access, equity, and anti-discrimination frameworks offer important resources for challenging this “special” treatment, so too do the diversity approaches which have supplemented or supplanted them (Goggin and Newell, “Diversity as if Disability Mattered”). In what new ways can we approach disability and policies relevant to it? In a surprisingly wide range of areas, innovation has featured as a new, cross-sectoral approach. Innovation has been a long-standing topic in science, technology and economics. However, its emergence as master-theme comes from its ability to straddle and yoke together previously diverse fields. Current discussions of innovation bring together and extend work on the information society, the knowledge economy, and the relationships between science and technology. We are now familiar for instance with arguments about how digital networked information and communications technologies and their consumption are creating new forms of innovation (Benkler; McPherson; Passiante, Elia, and Massari). Innovation discourse has extended to many other unfamiliar realms too, notably the area of social and community development, where a new concept of social innovation is now proposed (Mulgan), often aligned with new ideas of social entrepreneurship that go beyond earlier accounts of corporate social responsibility. We can see the importance of innovation in the ‘creative industries’ discourses and initiatives which have emerged since the 1990s. Here previously distinct endeavours of arts and culture have become reframed in a way that puts their central achievement of creativity to the fore, and recognises its importance across all sorts of service and manufacturing industries, in particular. More recently, theorists of creative industries, such as Cunningham, have begun to talk about “social network markets,” as a way to understand the new hybrid of creativity, innovation, digital technology, and new economic logics now being constituted (Cunningham and Potts). Innovation is being regarded as a cardinal priority for societies and their governments. Accordingly, the Australian government has commissioned a Review of The National Innovation System, led by Dr Terry Cutler, due to report in the second half of 2008. The Cutler review is especially focussed upon gaps and weaknesses in the Australian innovation system. Disability has the potential to figure very strongly in this innovation talk, however there has been little discussion of disability in the innovation discourse to date. The significance of disability in relation to innovation was touched upon some years ago, in a report on Disablism from the UK Demos Foundation (Miller, Parker and Gillinson). In a chapter entitled “The engine of difference: disability, innovation and creativity,” the authors discuss the area of inclusive design, and make the argument for the “involvement of disabled people to create a stronger model of user design”:Disabled people represented a market of 8.6 million customers at the last count and their experiences aren’t yet feeding through into processes of innovation. But the role of disabled people as innovators can and should be more active; we should include disabled people in the design process because they are good at it. (57) There are two reasons given for this expertise of disabled people in design. Firstly, “disabled people are often outstanding problem solvers because they have to be … life for disabled people at the moment is a series of challenges to be overcome” (57). Secondly, “innovative ideas are more likely to come from those who have a new or different angle on old problems” (57). The paradox in this argument is that as life becomes more equitable for people with disabilities, then these ‘advantages’ should disappear” (58). Accordingly, Miller et al. make a qualified argument, namely that “greater participation of disabled people in innovation in the short term may just be the necessary trigger for creating an altogether different, and better, system of innovation for everyone in the future” (58). The Demos Disablism report was written at a time when rhetorics of innovation were just beginning to become more generalized and mainstream. This was also at a time in the UK, when there was hope that new critical approaches to disability would see it become embraced as a part of the diverse society that Blair’s New Labor Britain had been indicating. The argument Disablism offers about disability and innovation is in some ways a more formalized version of vernacular theory (McLaughlin, 1996). In the disability movement we often hear, with good reason, that people with disability, by dint of their experience and knowledge are well positioned to develop and offer particular kinds of expertise. However, Miller et al. also gesture towards a more generalized account of disability and innovation, one that would intersect with the emerging frameworks around innovation. It is this possibility that I wish to take up and briefly explore here. I want to consider the prospects for a fully-fledged encounter between disability and innovation. I would like to have a better sense of whether this is worth pursuing, and what it would add to our understanding of both disability and innovation? Would the disability perspective be integrated as a long-term part of our systems of innovation rather than, as Miller et al. imply, deployed temporarily to develop better innovation systems? What pitfalls might be bound up with, or indeed be the conditions of, such a union between disability and innovation? The All-Too-Able User A leading area where disability figures profoundly in innovation is in the field of technology — especially digital technology. There is now a considerable literature and body of practice on disability and digital technology (Annable, Goggin, and Stienstra; Goggin and Newell, Digital Disability; National Council on Disability), however for my purposes here I would like to focus upon the user, the abilities ascribed to various kinds of users, and the user with disability in particular. Digital technologies are replete with challenges and opportunities; they are multi-layered, multi-media, and global in their manifestation and function. In Australia, Britain, Canada, the US, and Europe, there have been some significant digital technology initiatives which have resulted in improved accessibility for many users and populations (Annable, Goggin, and Stienstra; National Council on Disability) . There are a range of examples of ways in which users with disability are intervening and making a difference in design. There is also a substantial body of literature that clarifies why we need to include the perspective of the disabled if we are to be truly innovative in our design practices (Annable, Goggin and Stienstra; Goggin and Newell, “Disability, Identity and Interdependence”). I want to propose, however, that there is merit in going beyond recognition of the role of people with disability in technology design (vital and overlooked as it remains), to consider how disability can enrich contemporary discourses on innovation. There is a very desirable cross-over to be promoted between the emphasis on the user-as-expert in the sphere of disability and technology, and on the integral role of disability groups in the design process, on the one hand, and the rise of the user in digital culture generally, on the other. Surprisingly, such connections are nowhere near as widespread and systematic as they should be. It may be that contemporary debates about the user, and about the user as co-creator, or producer, of technology (Haddon et al.; von Hippel) actually reinstate particular notions of ability, and the able user, understood with reference to notions of disability. The current emphasis on the productive user, based as it is on changing understandings of ability and disability, provides rich material for critical revision of the field and those assumptions surrounding ability. It opens up possibilities for engaging more fully with disability and incorporating disability into the new forms and relations of digital technology that celebrate the user (Goggin and Newell, Digital Disability). While a more detailed consideration of these possibilities require more time than this essay allows, let us consider for a moment the idea of a genuine encounter between the activated user springing from the disability movement, and the much feted user in contemporary digital culture and theories of innovation. People with disability are using these technologies in innovative ways, so have much to contribute to wider discussions of digital technology (Annable, Goggin and Stienstra). The Innovation Turn Innovation policy, the argument goes, is important because it stands to increase productivity, which in turn leads to greater international competitiveness and economic benefit. Especially with the emergence of capitalism (Gleeson), productivity has strong links to particular notions of which types of production and produce are valued. Productivity is also strongly conditioned by how we understand ability and, last in a long chain of strong associations, how we as a society understand and value those kinds of people and bodies believed to contain and exercise the ordained and rewarded types of ability, produce, and productivity. Disability is often seen as antithetical to productivity (a revealing text on the contradictions of disability and productivity is the 2004 Productivity Commission Review of the Disability Discrimination Act). When we think about the history of disability, we quickly realize that productivity, and by extension, innovation, are strongly ideological. Ideological, that is, in the sense that these fields of human endeavour and our understanding of them are shaped by power relations, and are built upon implicit ‘ableist’ assumptions about productivity. In this case, the power relations of disability go right to the heart of the matter, highlighting who and what are perceived to be of value, contributing economically and in other ways to society, and who and what are considered as liabilities, as less valued and uneconomical. A stark recent example of this is the Howard government workplace and welfare reforms, which further disenfranchised, controlled, and impoverished people with disability. If we need to rethink our ideas of productivity and ability in the light of new notions of disability, then so too do we need to rethink our ideas about innovation and disability. Here the new discourses of innovation may actually be useful, but also contain limited formulations and assumptions about ability and disability that need to be challenged. The existing problems of a fresh approach to disability and innovation can be clearly observed in the touchstones of national science and technology “success.” Beyond One-Sided Innovation Disability does actually feature quite prominently in the annals of innovation. Take, for instance, the celebrated case of the so-called “bionic ear” (or cochlear implant) hailed as one of Australia’s great scientific inventions of the past few decades. This is something we can find on display in the Powerhouse Museum of Technology and Design, in Sydney. Yet the politics of the cochlear implant are highly controversial, not least as it is seen by many (for instance, large parts of the Deaf community) as not involving people with disabilities, nor being informed by their desires (Campbell, also see “Social and Ethical Aspects of Cochlear Implants”). A key problem with the cochlear implant and many other technologies is that they are premised on the abolition or overcoming of disability — rather than being shaped as technology that acknowledges and is informed by disabled users in their diverse guises. The failure to learn the lessons of the cochlear implant for disability and innovation can be seen in the fact that we are being urged now to band together to support the design of a “bionic eye” by the year 2020, as a mark of distinction of achieving a great nation (2020 Summit Initial Report). Again, there is no doubting the innovation and achievement in these artefacts and their technological systems. But their development has been marked by a distinct lack of consultation and engagement with people with disabilities; or rather the involvement has been limited to a framework that positions them as passive users of technology, rather than as “producer/users”. Further, what notions of disability and ability are inscribed in these technological systems, and what do they represent and symbolize in the wider political and social field? Unfortunately, such technologies have the effect of reproducing an ableist framework, “enforcing normalcy” (Davis), rather than building in, creating and contributing to new modes of living, which embrace difference and diversity. I would argue that this represents a one-sided logic of innovation. A two-sided logic of innovation, indeed what we might call a double helix (at least) of innovation would be the sustained, genuine interaction between different users, different notions of ability, disability and impairment, and the processes of design. If such a two-sided (or indeed many-sided logic) is to emerge there is good reason to think it could more easily do so in the field of digital cultures and technologies, than say, biotechnology. The reason for this is the emphasis in digital communication technologies on decentralized, participatory, user-determined governance and design, coming from many sources. Certainly this productive, democratic, participatory conception of the user is prevalent in Internet cultures. Innovation here is being reshaped to harness the contribution and knowledge of users, and could easily be extended to embrace pioneering efforts in disability. Innovating with Disability In this paper I have tried to indicate why it is productive for discourses of innovation to consider disability; the relationship between disability and innovation is rich and complex, deserving careful elaboration and interrogation. In suggesting this, I am aware that there are also fundamental problems that innovation raises in its new policy forms. There are the issues of what is at stake when the state is redefining its traditional obligations towards citizens through innovation frameworks and discourses. And there is the troubling question of whether particular forms of activity are normatively judged to be innovative — whereas other less valued forms are not seen as innovative. By way of conclusion, however, I would note that there are now quite basic, and increasingly accepted ways, to embed innovation in design frameworks, and while they certainly have been adopted in the disability and technology area, there is much greater scope for this. However, a few things do need to change before this potential for disability to enrich innovation is adequately realized. Firstly, we need further research and theorization to clarify the contribution of disability to innovation, work that should be undertaken and directed by people with disability themselves. Secondly, there is a lack of resources for supporting disability and technology organisations, and the development of training and expertise in this area (especially to provide viable career paths for experts with disability to enter the field and sustain their work). If this is addressed, the economic benefits stand to be considerable, not to mention the implications for innovation and productivity. Thirdly, we need to think about how we can intensify existing systems of participatory design, or, better still, introduce new user-driven approaches into strategically important places in the design processes of ICTs (and indeed in the national innovation system). Finally, there is an opportunity for new approaches to governance in ICTs at a general level, informed by disability. New modes of organising, networking, and governance associated with digital technology have attracted much attention, also featuring recently in the Australia 2020 Summit. Less well recognised are new ideas about governance that come from the disability community, such as the work of Queensland Advocacy Incorporated, Rhonda Galbally’s Our Community, disability theorists such as Christopher Newell (Newell), or the Canadian DIS-IT alliance (see, for instance, Stienstra). The combination of new ideas in governance from digital culture, new ideas from the disability movement and disability studies, and new approaches to innovation could be a very powerful cocktail indeed.Dedication This paper is dedicated to my beloved friend and collaborator, Professor Christopher Newell AM (1964-2008), whose extraordinary legacy will inspire us all to continue exploring and questioning the idea of able. References Abberley, Paul. “The Concept of Oppression and the Development of a Social Theory of Disability.” Disability, Handicap & Society 2.1 (1987): 5–20. Annable, Gary, Gerard Goggin, and Deborah Stienstra, eds. “Accessibility and Inclusion in Information Technologies.” Special issue of The Information Society 23.3 (2007): 145-147. Australia 2020 Summit. Australia 2020 Summit — Initial Report. Commonwealth of Australia 20 April 2008. 15 May 2008 ‹http://www.australia2020.gov.au/docs/2020_Summit_initial_report.doc›. Barnes, Colin, and Geoff Mercer, eds. Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research. Leeds: The Disability Press, 2004. Barnes, Colin, Mike Oliver, and Len Barton, eds. Disability Studies Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002. Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Borsay, Anne. “Personal Trouble or Public Issue? Toward a Model of Policy for People with Physical and Mental Disabilities.” Disability, Handicap and Society 1.2 (1986): 179-195. Bourke, Joanna. Dismembering the Male: Men’s Bodies, Britain and the Great War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Butler, Judith. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” London: Routledge, 1993. Campbell, Fiona. “Selling the Cochlear Implant.” Disability Studies Quarterly 25.3 (2005). ‹http://www.dsq-sds-archives.org/_articles_html/2005/summer/campbell.asp›. Carrier, James G. Learning Disability: Social Class and the Construction of Inequality in American Education. New York: Greenword Press, 1986. Cole, Mike, ed. Education, Equality and Human Rights: Issues of Gender, ‘Race’, Sexuality, Disability and Social Class. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. Corker, Mairean, and Tom Shakespeare, eds. Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying Disability Theory. London: Continuum, 2002. Davis, Lennard J. Bending Over Backwards: Disability, Dismodernism, and other Difficult Positions. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2002. ———. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness and the Body. London: Verso, 1995. Fine, Michelle, and Adrienne Asch, eds. Women with Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988. Fulcher, Gillian. Disabling Policies? London: Falmer Press, 1989. Gerber, David A., ed. Disabled Veterans in History. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000. Gleeson, Brendan. Geographies of Disability. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Goggin, Gerard, and Christopher Newell. Digital Disability: The Social Construction of Disability in New Media. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. ———. Disability in Australia: Exposing a Social Apartheid. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2005. ———, eds. “Disability, Identity, and Interdependence: ICTs and New Social Forms.” Special issue of Information, Communication & Society 9.3 (2006). ———. “Diversity as if Disability Mattered.” Australian Journal of Communication 30.3 (2003): 1-6. ———, eds. “Technology and Disability.” Special double issue of Disability Studies Quarterly 25.2-3 (2005). Haddon, Leslie, Enid Mante, Bartolomeo Sapio, Kari-Hans Kommonen, Leopoldina Fortunati, and Annevi Kant, eds. Everyday Innovators: Researching the Role of Users in Shaping ICTs. London: Springer, 2005. Jones, Melinda, and Anne Basser Marks Lee, eds. Disability, Divers-ability and Legal Change. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1999. McLaughlin, Thomas. Street Smarts and Critical Theory: Listening to the Vernacular. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. McPherson, Tara, ed. Digital Youth, Innovation, and the Unexpected. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. Meekosha, Helen. “Drifting Down the Gulf Stream: Navigating the Cultures of Disability Studies.” Disability & Society 19.7 (2004): 721-733. Miller, Paul, Sophia Parker, and Sarah Gillinson. Disablism: How to Tackle the Last Prejudice. London: Demos, 2004. ‹http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/disablism›. Mulgan, Geoff. “The Process of Social Innovation.” Innovations 1.2 (2006): 145-62. Muir, Kristy. “‘That Bastard’s Following Me!’ Mentally Ill Australian Veterans Struggling to Maintain Control.” Social Histories of Disability and Deformity. Ed. in David M. Turner and Kevin Stagg. New York: Routledge. 161-74. National Council on Disability (NCD). Design for Inclusion: Creating a New Marketplace. Washington: NCD, 2004. Newell, Christopher. “Debates Regarding Governance: A Disability Perspective.” Disability & Society 13.2 (1998): 295-296. Oliver, Michael. The Politics of Disablement: A Sociological Approach. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Passiante, Giuseppina, Valerio Elia, and Tommaso Massari, eds. Digital Innovation: Innovation Processes in Virtual Clusters and Digital Regions. London: Imperial College Press, 2003. Productivity Commission. Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Melbourne: Productivity Commission, 2004. ‹http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/dda/docs/finalreport›. Shakespeare, Tom. Disability Rights and Wrongs. New York: Routledge, 2006. Shorten, Bill. Address-in-Reply, Governor-General’s Speech. Hansard 14 Feb. 2008: 328-333. ———. “Speaking Up for True Battlers.” Daily Telegraph 12 March 2008. ‹http://www.billshorten.com.au/press/index.cfm?Fuseaction=pressreleases_full&ID=1328›. Snyder, Sharon L., Brenda Brueggemann, and Rosemary Garland-Thomson, eds. Disability Studies: Enabling the Humanities. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2002. Stienstra, Deborah. “The Critical Space Between: Access, Inclusion and Standards in Information Technologies.” Information, Communication & Society 9.3 (2006): 335-354. Stiker, Henri-Jacques. A History of Disability. Trans. William Sayers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Thomas, Carol. Female Forms: Experiencing and Understanding Disability. Buckingham: Open University, 1999. Rosenblum, Karen E., and Toni-Michelle C. Travis, eds. The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Von Hippel, Eric. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Walker, Alan. “The Social Origins of Impairment, Disability and Handicap.” Medicine and Society 6.2-3 (1980): 18-26. White, Michele. “Where Do You Want to Sit Today: Computer Programmers’ Static Bodies and Disability.” Information, Communication and Society 9.3 (2006): 396-416.

Doctor Educationis
The aim of this research was to establish how successfully schools in the foundation phase (Grades 1 and 2), where training and implementation of OBE has been completed, were able to reach the goals of OBE. As part of the broader goal, this investigation attempted to clarify whether the inclusionary approach of OBE was working in primary schools in the foundation phase based on its central premise that all students can learn and succeed, but not on the same day and in the same way. More specifically, this investigation attempted to establish: (i) How successfully had the 66 specific outcomes been implemented in Grade 1 and Grade 2? (ii) What was the level of success of implementation in the different learning areas? (iii) What was the level of success in the implementation of mastery learning? (iv) How many learners had been moved from special education sites to regular education sites? (v) Did schools have the resources to deal with diversity? (vi) Had there been sufficient human resource development to ensure teachers had been trained to deal with diversity? And (vii) Did teachers feel they could teach all learners? In order to arrive at the above-mentioned aim, this study included a survey in a sample of primary schools in the Western Cape. A survey was conducted in 108 primary schools which constitutes 10% of the primary schools in the Western Cape Province. The 108 schools were chosen based on socio-economic and rural/urban considerations. Schools were identified on the following basis: 25% of the poorly resourced schools in urban areas, 25% of the well resourced schools in urban areas, 25% of the poorly resourced schools in the rural areas and 25% of the well resourced schools in the rural areas. Regarding the results of the study concerning the specific outcomes and learning areas, in grade one and grade two results relating to the specific outcomes and learning areas revealed that the majority of teachers rated the level of success at average and below. For example, the range of those teachers who indicated average and below in grade 1 was from 41.03% to 81.96% and in grade 2 from 43.56% to 79.50%. In most learning areas, the number of teachers who In Grades one and two, both language, literacy and communication and indicated average and below was substantial, for example, in grade 1; Natural Sciences, 81.96%, Technology, 78.43%, Economics and Management Sciences, 72.87%. Similar results have been found in Grade 2, for example; Natural Sciences, 79,50%, indicated average and below was substantial, for example, in grade 1 levels across geographical and socio-economic contexts. For example, the urban poor had the lowest results in Grade two and the urban rich experienced the lowest results in Grade one. This suggests that the implementation of OBE was generally poor. The poor results of the urban rich in relation to the other categories suggest that the implementation of OBE has failed in affluent urban schools yet it is normally expected that affluent schools would perform well in relation to the other categories. This is another indication that the implementation of OBE has generally been poor.