Parasitism Revealed: On the Absence of Concession

An examination of the role of ideologies from the past in shaping educational thought, action, policy and practice in the present. Takes the position that inequality is an expression of a fundamentally parasitic relationship forged during the 17th century colonial push and cemented institutionally in the early 20th century by a progressive version of social Darwinist thought known as eugenic ideology. Considered are the roles of historical disciplinary limitations, memory, and the co-optation of the language of social justice in perpetuating a racist, classist, hierarchy in education that has been bearing fruit for nearly two centuries. Warns against uncritical use of the language and framework of social justice specifically and progressivism in general

Eugenic Ideology and Historical Osmosis

Issues of inequity in education are plentiful, but too little attention has been paid to the origins of this inequity which is more tangible than has been acknowledged. This paper traces the early twentieth-century formation of our modern system of education by eminent psychologists and statisticians who were enacting their allegiance to the dominant belief system about intelligence and ability as connected to race and class as expressed and formulated by the eugenics movement. Specifically, this paper explicates the role of eugenic ideology in creating a system designed to sort and classify students according to preconceived notions about their ability and worth to society resulting in a system of education that has served to fortify inequity ever since

Eugenic Ideology and the Institutionalization of the ‘Technofix’ on the Underclass

This scenario for the twenty-first century, in which China assumes world domination and establishes a world eugenic state, may well be considered an unattractive future. But this is not really the point. Rather, it should be regarded as the inevitable result of Francis Galton’s (1909) prediction made in the first decade of the twentieth century, that “the nation which first subjects itself to rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth” (p. 34)” (Lynn, 2001 p. 320)

Radical (re)naming through a tapestry of autoethographic voices: Finding healing through dis/ability theorizing

In this article, we engaged in a multi-layered collective autoethnography about disability, ableism, and identity within the context of schools and society by exploring the relationship between Curriculum Studies and Dis/ability Studies in Education. While excerpts of our individual narratives are embedded in the article, our final piece weaves together our individual reflections to illustrate that there is no single experience of dis/ability; however, there are themes about dis/ability and resistance to ableism that can be gleaned from hearing a multiplicity of voices within a context of intersectionality for radical individual, social and (inter)disciplinary transformation

Injection-site reactions upon Kineret (anakinra) administration: experiences and explanations

Anakinra (Kineret), a recombinant form of human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist, is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in combination with methotrexate. Kineret is self-administered by daily subcutaneous injections in patients with active RA. The mechanism of action of anakinra is to competitively inhibit the local inflammatory effects of IL-1. Kineret is generally safe and well tolerated and the only major treatment-related side effects that appear are skin reactions at the injection site. Due to the relatively short half-life of anakinra, daily injection of the drug is required. This, in combination with the comparably high rates of injection-site reactions (ISRs) associated with the drug, can become a problem for the patient. The present review summarises published data concerning ISRs associated with Kineret and provides some explanations as to their cause. The objective is also to present some clinical experiences of how the ISRs can be managed

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Winfield, Ann G., Eugenics and Social Control: Patterns and Influences in Current Thought, pp. 121-137 in Lesley Coia and others, eds., Democratic Responses in an Era of Standardization. Troy, NY: Educator\u27s International Press, 2004.

Discusses the nature and influence of eugenics as an ideology on curriculum and other educational policies, both past and present