Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:35:45.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community Management of Young and Disabled Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

John F. Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Community management is proposed as a sound, economical and demonstrably successful alternative in the management of young and disabled children. The author seeks to go beyond the health-education debate in this matter towards a welfare oriented model based upon principles drawn from a diversity of disciplines. One such principle incorporates the natural law of utilising forces to counterbalance forces – a principle fundamental to most areas of science but one which is rarely extrapolated for use within social science generally, or management of the disabled specifically. In the Darling Downs project in Queensland, Australia, resource families are deployed to counterbalance or assist “disabled” families with the support of professionals in the community network. The paper sets out the variously derived principles underlying the Darling Downs project and then provides a detailed description of other aspects of the framework including funding, administration, services, procedures and current developments. The programme is then analysed in terms of its anticipated directions, strengths/weaknesses, limitations and applicability to the other situations.

Type
Articles
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , November 1979 , pp. 25 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abt Associates. Education as experimentation: a planned variation model. (Vol. IV). Cambridge, Mass: Abt Associates, 1977.Google Scholar
Advisory Committee on Child Development, Toward a National Policy for Children and Families. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1976.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. Social Class and Linguistic Development: A Theory of Social Learning. In Halsey, A. H., et al. (eds.) Economy, Education and Society. Glencoe: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.Google Scholar
Calder, N. (ed.) The World in 1984. Vol 1. London: Penguin, 1964.Google Scholar
Emlen, A. Slogans, Slots and Slander: the myth of day care need. Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1973, 43, 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortune, J. C. Problems facing the Evaluator of Social Action Programs. ERIC, 1972, 7: 10. ED 064380.Google Scholar
Hess, R. D. and Shipman, V. Cognitive Elements in Maternal Behavior. In Hill, J. P. (ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Hobart, C. W. Commitment, value conflict and the future of the American family. Marriage and Family Living, 1963, 25, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. Mc. J. Parent and Child Centers: Their Basis in Behavioral and Educational Sciences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illich, I. D. Energy and Equity. London: Calder and Boyars, 1974.Google Scholar
Jungk, R. and Galtung, J. (ed.) Mankind 2000. London: Allen and Un win, 1969.Google Scholar
Kahn, H. and Wiener, A. J. The Year 2000 – A Framework for Speculation on the next thirty-three years. London: Macmillan and Co., 1967.Google Scholar
Karnes, M. B. et. al. Educational Intervention at home by mothers of disadvantaged infants. Child Development, 1970, 41, 925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keister, M. and Saunders, M. Family Day Care: Some Observations. Uni. of North Carolina, Greensboro. 1972 (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Klaus, R. and Gray, S. W. The early training project for disadvantaged children: a report after five years. Monog. of Society of Research in Child Development, 1968, 33, (4, Serial No. 120).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koyen, G. V. Evaluation of Community Based Program as a Model for E.C.E. Programs and Social Action. Ann Arbour, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1976.Google Scholar
Mann, J. The outcome of evaluative research. In Mann, J., Changing Human Behavior. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965, 191–241.Google Scholar
Marcuse, H. One Dimensional Man. London: Sphere, 1968.Google Scholar
Molony, H. Family day care: a community child care resource. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 1976, 1, (2), 9–14.Google Scholar
Nye, F. and Hoffman, D. The Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.Google Scholar
Perry, J. B. Mother substitutes. In Nye, F. and Hoffman, D. (eds.), The Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.Google Scholar
Prescott, E. A Comparison of Three Types of Day Care and Nursery School Home Care. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1973.Google Scholar
Sale, J. S. Family day care: One alternative in the delivery of developmental services in early childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1973, 42, 37.Google Scholar
Schon, D. A. Beyond the Stable State Public and Private Learning in a Changing Society. London: Penguin, 1973.Google Scholar
Soule, G. The Shape of Tomorrow. New York: Signet, Key Books, 1958.Google Scholar
Travis, A. S. The Management of Alternative Futures: Planning as Applied Ecology. Paper presented at Australian Planning Congress, Adelaide, August, 1976.Google Scholar
U.K. Dept. of Environment. Renewal Strategies. (Vide Gradual Renewal). Circular 1315 Housing Act 1974, London: H.M.S.O., 1975.Google Scholar
Willner, M. Unsupervised family day care in New York City. Child Welfare. 1969, 47, 342.Google Scholar