Condu ct i ve edu c a t i on i s a d i st i n ct i ve s t y l e of t ea c h i ng and l earn i ng f or pupil s wi t h physi c a l d iffi c u l t i es . I t i s pra ct i sed i n t he UK i n some mai nt a i ned, non-mai n t a i ned and i ndependent speci al sc hool s and c en t res (here co ll e ct i ve l y t ermed ‘condu ct i ve-edu c a t i on sc hool s’ ) . In t hi s art i c l e Mi ke L a m b e r t i nves t i ga t es t he ex t en t t o wh i c h t hese c ondu ct i ve-edu c a t i on sc hool s have li nks w i t h ma i nst ream school s, and t he purposes and nat ure of su c h li nks. I t di sc usses wha t condu ct i ve-edu c a t i on schools may need to do if t hey are to deve l op effective and va luabl e rol es i n respect to mai nstream sc hooli ng. Thi s repor t has re l evan c e f or a ll s c hoo l s , bu t p ar t i cul arl y for t hose spe c ia l sc hool s wi t h an i nt erest i n , or pra ct i si ng, condu ct i ve edu c a t i on and for mai nst ream sc hools i n t erest ed i n work i ng wi t h t hem. Condu c ti v e e du c a ti on: li n ks w it h ma i n s t r e am s c hoo l s MIKE LAMBER T In t rodu ct i on Conductive education is usually practised with children and adults with motor disorders, most commonly cerebral palsy in children and Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and the effects of strokes in adults. The approach developed in post-war Hungary, became known to some UK professionals in the 1960s, and to wider professional bodies and the public at large in the 1980s and 1990s (Lambert, 1994; Sutton, 2000). The growth of conductive education in the UK (and in other countries) was subject to, at times, vigorous debate amongst professionals. This often concerned the extent to which practice developing in the UK represented ‘valid’conductive education as in Hungary, or partial and ill-considered representation of the real thing (e.g. Beach, 1988; Cottam, 1994; Tatlow, 1995). Also pursued were wider arguments about the extent to which the approach itself was of value, if at all (Oliver, 1989; Beardshaw, 1989; Sutton, 1989; Bairstow, Cochrane and Hur, 1993; Hornby, Atkinson and Howard, 1997). N ow there is a wide ra n ge of diffe rent kinds of conductive-education provision. The main focus of this report is those schools and centres which employ, or who have close involvement with, qualified ‘conductors’ who strongly influence their work. These professionals have completed formal training at the Petö Institute in Budapest, at the National Institute for Conductive Education in Birmingham, UK, or at Keele University, UK. The main website (Conductive Education Website, 2000) currently lists 19 different organisations in the UK associated with schools, centres or groups of this kind. Most are independent; most work with children (the focus of this report); some with adults. Some are solely staffed by trained conductors; others employ conductors to work alongside other professional staff – teachers, therapists, etc. There are also other maintained special schools, not on the website list, where trained conductors work or are closely involved in provision (e.g. High Calibre Curriculum, 2001). The range of provision makes it difficult to paint a single picture of practice. There is variety in settings, staffing, age and nature of pupils, professional roles, funding mechanisms and relationship to the educational curriculum. Priorities and concerns do not coincide. One cannot be sure, therefore, how consistently this provision reflects the characteristics of conductive education described in the key literature. The pra ct i c e The seminal work by Hári (1988) spelt out the overall principles and features of conductive-education practice for English-speaking professionals. These have been repeated and exemplified in published material by conductors and others working in the UK since then. For Hári conductive education was an ‘integrated system’, the conductor its ‘integral operator’. According to Baker (2001), conductors ‘possess knowledge of particular teaching techniques and relevant ways of organising and planning teaching, as well as specific knowledge of movement and its problems’ (p. 21). Hári (1988) further highlighted the system’s distinctive schedule and promotion of a ‘dynamic lifestyle’, with the whole day serving C O N D U C T I V E E D U C A T I O N © NASEN 2004 Support for Learni ng • Vol ume 19 • Number 1 • 2004 31