Inhoud blog
  • Waarom leerlingen steeds slechter presteren op Nederlandse scholen; en grotendeels ook toepasselijk op Vlaams onderwijs!?
  • Waarom leerlingen steeds slechter presteren op Nederlandse scholen; en grotendeels ook toepasselijk op Vlaams onderwijs!?
  • Inspectie in Engeland kiest ander spoor dan in VlaanderenI Klemtoon op kernopdracht i.p.v. 1001 wollige ROK-criteria!
  • Meer lln met ernstige gedragsproblemen in l.o. -Verraste en verontwaardigde beleidsmakers Crevits (CD&V) & Steve Vandenberghe (So.a) ... wassen handen in onschuld en pakken uit met ingrepen die geen oplossing bieden!
  • Schorsing probleemleerlingen in lager onderwijs: verraste en verontwaardigde beleidsmakers wassen handen in onschuld en pakken uit met niet-effective maatregelen
    Zoeken in blog

    Beoordeel dit blog
      Zeer goed
      Goed
      Voldoende
      Nog wat bijwerken
      Nog veel werk aan
     
    Onderwijskrant Vlaanderen
    Vernieuwen: ja, maar in continuïteit!
    26-11-2014
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Onderwijs. Kritiek op inclusief onderwijs in Engeland (M-decreet)

    Kritiek op inclusief onderwijs in Engeland= falend systeem: vier berichten

    *Bericht vooraf


    Special needs pupils are suffering from inclusion

      2007

                     

    In 1978, I led a committee whose findings formed the basis for the special needs education system we still have today. Given that many of the special schools of the time were outdated and ineffective, we proposed that disabled pupils should, where appropriate, be integrated into mainstream schools - the policy that is now known as inclusion.

    But something has gone wrong. The ideology of inclusion has been taken too far, without much thought about whether mainstream schools can actually manage the children who they are supposed to educate. Thanks largely to the disability lobby's belief that it is the right of every child to be educated in a mainstream setting, we are burdened with a system in which the needs of children, and the wishes of parents, are in danger of being trampled underfoot.

    There has of course been considerable growth and improvement in special schooling recently. But the problem is that this tends to help children with very severe disabilities, both mental and physical. The more severe and obvious the disability is, the better the care, which is of course a good thing. But there is one group in particular which has seen the special schools which used to cater for them close - those with what are now called moderate learning disabilities.

    These are children whose disabilities are not as visible: children with psychological difficulties, or autism, or Asperger's syndrome. There are far more of them than there were in the 1970s - one in five children of school age has some form of special needs - but they are also the worst served, because it looks, on the face of it, as if they ought to manage perfectly well alongside their contemporaries.

    Yes, there are lots of disabled children who can be quite well catered for in mainstream schools - and it's much better for them if they are. But for others, a mainstream school is the worst kind of setting, because it's much too big: they can't take all the jostling and hustling and rushing from one place to another, or process all the sensory data that's flying at them. Asperger's pupils find other children very difficult to cope with - and the other children have problems with them in turn. So they can't make social contact with their teachers of their peers, and have an absolutely hellish time. And after they become unmanageable at school, they are sent home, and become unmanageable there.

    These children should be going to small schools that know and cater for them - and nobody knows this better than their parents. Parents are so much better placed then anyone else to know the needs of their child, and what they can't put up with. So they should be given the choice of where to send their children - if a private school is more suitable, or a child would benefit greatly by boarding, then the parents should pay what they can and the local authority should support them, in a similar system to the means-tested direct grant that worked so well years ago.

    I know so many parents whose children have become completely distraught at school, because they have been forced to go to somewhere that isn't suitable for them. The system should be determined by the needs of children, not the dogma of inclusion - and it is parents who are best placed to determine those needs.

    Baroness Warnock chaired the UK's committee of inquiry into special education, which reported in 1978mmm


    *Bericht 1. inclusion= “illusion, confusion, delusion” Dr Rachel V. Gow

    Special educational needs: The current miserable state of affairs (facebook)

     In 2008, The Bow Group published a report titled – SEN: The Truth about Inclusion. In my opinion, their report provides a firm rationale for a renewed government inquiry into the current miserable state of affairs in relation to the exclusion of children with special educational needs in England. This next section provides a summary of their findings but for a more comprehensive overview of their report please refer to the link provided in the footnote below .

     Let’s first begin by briefly uncovering some of the history surrounding the educational provision of children with special educational needs (SEN). In 1978, Baroness Warnox wrote a highly influential report highlighting the unjustified marginalization of children with SEN. Up until this point, children with SEN had been treated as if they were some type of “social pariahs”. The Warnock report argued for the inclusion of children with SEN into mainstream society in every way.

     Taking the content of this report into consideration, a short time later the Conservative government enforced this aim for inclusion into robust legislation – the Education Act (1981). This act entitled children with SEN to appropriate educational provision; for the first time these children’s specific needs were safe-guarded. The act enabled the evaluation of the child in a series of stages starting with a statutory assessment and ultimately leading to the allocation of a statement of special educational needs. A statement is a legally binding document which makes clear the child’s needs, appropriate provision and placement which a local education authority (LEA) is then legally bound to put in place.

     During the 1990’s the Government went one step further and gave children with special educational needs an entitlement to attend mainstream education if appropriate and parents the right to appeal to a SEN tribunal. There was now a formal Code of Practise which served as guidance to both the Local Authorities and schools on how to govern the process.

     However, in 2001 under the rule of New Labour, a new Education act made a quantum leap:The starting point is always that children who have statements will receive mainstream education. (Inclusive Schooling Guidance, 2001, paragraph 22).

     The new legislation now insisted that children with SEN must be educated in mainstream schools unless overwhelming evidence was provided to the contrary. This evidence was based on two points:

    1.Whether the child would disproportionately disrupt the rest of the class.2.Whether it was cost efficient. Arguably, the act was also open for misinterpretation by local education authorities who perceived it as an obligation to educate children with SEN in mainstream schools. The act also had the additive benefit of potentially saving substantial amounts of money for LEA budgets. It also meant that the child’s needs assumed secondary importance and that parents had to now battle for the recognition of their child’s needs.

     

    In 1997, the number of children in the U.K. in maintained special schools was 93, 020 and in non-maintained: 5,230 so a total of 98,250 children. In 2007, the figures reduced dramatically to 84,680 in maintained schools, 4720 in non-maintained schools with a total figure of 89, 410 children. Somehow a total of 8,840 places have been lost over the course of that decade alone. We have witnessed not only a reduction in the issuing of statements but also an increase in the number of statemented pupils in mainstream schools as a direct result of the closure of special schools.

    Bear in mind, children without a statement cannot get a place at a special school and therefore have no legal entitlement to appropriate educational provision or support. Non-statemented students are ordinarily divided into 2 categories:

     2.School action (this is the lesser need category and gives the child extra attention + help).2.School action plus (external help is given in the form of therapy or extra tuition).In primary schools in 2003 there were 475,290 students on School Action and 209,810 on School Action Plus. In Secondary schools, these figures equated to 308,870 and 121,210 respectively. In 2007, there was a 36% increase in the number of students receiving School Action plus in Secondary school alone bringing the figure to 165, 120.

    Persistent fixed-term exclusions and permanent exclusions may result in the inappropriate placement of a child with SEN into a pupil referral unit (PRU). PRU’s can be considered as the last chance saloon and reserved for those children thought to be uneducable in mainstream schools. In 2006, Ofsted identified PRU’s as the least appropriate place for children with SEN to be educated. The original aim of PRU’s was to reintegrate children back into mainstream school if the behaviour of the child improved. However, the referral to a PRU can also result in the complete breakdown of a student’s education and worse still increase the risk of exposure to gang affiliation and more serious anti-social and criminal behaviour. The problem is that PRU’s were never designed to cater for children with SEN and the number of suspensions given to SEN children in PRU’s arguably highlights their complete inability to cope and meet their specific and complex needs. There is enough evidence to suggest that the placement of children with SEN in PRU’s is a complete failure of the government to fulfil a commitment or responsibility to these children. It is arguably wholly inappropriate and must be re-considered with better care and attention.

    Not so fun facts and figures

    Approximately 9000 places at special schools have been lost.The number of statements and statutory assessments for children with SEN has fallen by over one-third.

    In relation to truancy, children on School Action Plus schemes are twice as likely as other SEN children to truant.1/5 of all School Action Plus children are persistent truants.

    In relation to exclusions, children with special educational needs comprise the majority of all pupils expelled (permanently excluded) from school at 67% although they only make-up 17% of the school population.Children with SEN are more likely to be suspended more than once a year. Out of the 78, 600 students excluded more than once in a single year, just under 50% were students with SEN.

    In 2008, over 50% of all suspensions from secondary schools were students with SEN.In 2008, over 50% of students suspended from pupil referral units (PRU’s) nearly 3/4 ‘s were children with SEN.

    66% of all SEN students at PRU’s end up being suspended.The education of SEN’s students in PRU’s has risen by 70% since 1997.Over 50% of all appeals are against a LEA’s decision not to assess or statement a child.

     The statistics are appalling and quite frankly an embarrassment in this modern day and age given all the knowledge we have about the impact and enormity of educational failure. It seems very little is being done to address this miserable state of affairs. An urgent independent review of the entire system is long overdue and warrants immediate investigation. We cannot continue setting children with special educational needs up to fail. The burden of this failure is huge and the implications are far and wide beyond the devastating effects to both the individual and their families but are evident from a socio-economic, medical and psychological perspective. We only have to refer to the clinical research which now confirms that an estimated 50% of all incarcerated adults meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD. This is ultimately a very real end point of educational failure, of not meeting the child’s needs; a PRU to prison trajectory when the reality is that the entire situation is so utterly preventable. Much better investment needs to go into prevention and research. We need to be much more accountable in recognizing that these children are arguably being set up to fail.

     The answer is a professional re-evaluation of the current situation which ultimately necessitates a paradigm shift in the way we think about the education of these young people. The result of exhaustive investigations has to be updated policies. It seems that some policy makers in the U.K. are so out of touch with the reality of this failing system. A new model of education needs to be implemented; there is no doubt that it is time for change.

     

    *Berucht 2: Inclusion, inclusion, inclusion = illusion

    It seems the general consensus is that 1 child cannot take precedence over another 29, it is better to side-line 1 child than risk the others failing too. However, an important point is that about 1 in 5 children in an average class today are now estimated to have some type of special educational need (defined here as: emotional, behavioral, specific learning difficulties e.g., reading/writing etc, linguistic e.g., non-English speaking, health/medical, physical e.g., dysphasia, mobility) so that equates to approximately 6 children in a class of 30. If there are 4 classes in the average Year (UK) or Grade (US) that is 24 children with special educational needs – multiply that by the number of total number of classes in each Year or Grade in the entire school – well you can do the maths – but put it this way enough kids to fill a small school of its own (estimated total children with SEN in a U.K. school with an intake of 120 children per year (4 classes x 30 children): 168 in a Secondary school; 144 in a Primary school; 312 in an all-through school, that is Infant and Primary combined). In England, our ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair was very determined to push his “Inclusion, inclusion, inclusion” policies forward. The 3 words that spring to my mind in respect to this policy were more along the lines of “illusion, confusion, delusion” and I will explain why.

    Arguably, the notion of integrative inclusion was the rationale also behind closing or terminating funding for a large number of government funded special education schools. Not surprising multiple and complex issues arose as a result of this change which will not be critiqued here because they deserve much closer and more detailed attention than I can give. But, in brief, issues related to League Tables and more critically – the rapid creation of rather large Assessment and Learning centres which in fact were somehow allowed even though they went against everything the bill was designed to achieve. Essentially, they re-created a type of social segregation system; one which separated those with special educational needs from the rest of the school on the basis they needed specialized intervention. Even more ironically was the promise of re-integration into the main school which was distastefully used as the carrot on the end of the stick. Arguably, as a means of coercing the child in question to achieve better standards of behaviour – such as learning to control those ADHD symptoms.

    Of course, the inclusion changes by Blair forced many children with special educational needs into mainstream schools where arguably the majority of them struggled to cope. It would be interesting to calculate the exact number of children with special educational needs who were permanently excluded during this period (roughly 1997 to 2007). Some schools remained, in particular, for those considered “intellectually disabled”, in other words, those with IQ’s around or lower than 70. The only other option for parents were places at private day or residential schools which unless you were self-funded required a statement and more often than not a tribunal. However, attendance at some of these private residential schools arguably created an altogether different situation. Some of them appeared to operate in a business sense, ad libitum to cherry pick boarders by way of interview and then exclude those that proved too burdensome. Unfortunately, not all these schools specialized in one specific type of learning difference or diagnosis e.g., dyslexia. It is surprisingly uncommon in the U.K., although some do exist, to find private schools focusing simply on for example just ADHD. In fact, some schools won’t take children with ADHD opting instead for a focus on diagnoses which are arguably less behaviourally challenging such as Dyslexia. While other private specialist schools will group children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders together with children with language processing difficulties, dyslexia, Tourette’s syndrome or ADD and the result is often unmanageable chaos and an increased risk of permanent exclusion for some. This brings us back to the square peg / round hole situation. Another valid point is that teachers are not psychologists – nor are they expected to be – yet the amount of special educational needs training they receive in the U.K. is arguably miniscule compared, for example, to the U.S. where special education is highly developed in universities and results in specialist qualifications and a higher volume of qualified professionals.

     

    *Bericht 3: Special-needs education: Does mainstream inclusion work?

    Labour wants children with learning difficulties to attend mainstream schools. But critics say that the policy of inclusion isn't working. Hilary Farr Wilce investigates a very political issue

    David Cameron has a disabled son, and speaks up about it. Tony Blair was angrily confronted recently by Maria Hutchins, the mother of an autistic child. Baroness Warnock has been beating her breast about getting the policy wrong on special-needs education. Never have the needs of children with physical and learning difficulties been so much in the political spotlight.

    All parties made a commitment to improving services to such children in their general election manifestos; the Conservatives have set up a commission on special educational needs; and the Commons education select committee is sinking under record piles of paperwork as it conducts a wide-ranging enquiry into the future of special-needs education.

    But whether anything productive will come of it all remains doubtful. Observers say that problems with the current system are deeply entrenched, and they fear that more will be thrown up by the Government's plan to establish independent secondary schools that will be able to select their own pupils.

    Meanwhile, "special needs" remains a vast umbrella, under which huddle all kinds of children, from the primary-school pupil with a mild hearing problem, to profoundly autistic adolescents and children with complex physical disabilities. "Special needs is just an administrative category," says Alan Dyson, professor of education at Manchester University, who has a specialist interest in the area. "The only thing these kids have in common is that they've been labelled special needs."

    The groups fighting for their interests are equally disparate. Parents of children with difficulties are desperate for their own particular child to be safe and happy in school. Every disability group fights its own corner, while broader lobby groups tend to adopt strongly ideological positions about how society should treat difference.

    This shows most strongly in the arguments about inclusion. Labour is committed to a policy of including as many children as possible in mainstream schools, and 93 special schools have closed down since l997. This is broadly in line with policies embraced throughout the Western world. But many of those children have been inadequately provided for, and as a result the pendulum has swung back towards demands for more special-school provision.

    Last summer, Baroness Warnock, whose report in 1978 started the bandwagon for inclusion, said the policy had backfired, leaving "a disastrous legacy", and the Conservatives have called on the select committee to look into "the bias against allowing parents to choose special schools".

    But Richard Reiser, the director of Disability Equality in Education, is dismissive of the way the select committee's enquiry has been launched in response to the Warnock U-turn. "This isn't even an issue any more. The question is not whether to include children, but how to do it effectively. You need inclusions, not placements, and for that you need more resources, more training and a mandatory code of admissions.

    "Disadvantaged children should be given priority above all others. That would be the way to change the skew we have now. And there should be a limit on the use of special schools in any area. Some areas use them 10 times more than others," Reiser says.

    Sir Bob Balchin, chair of the Tory enquiry into special education, disagrees. "The ideology of inclusion ought to be consigned to history. We need to look at the whole thing in a more pragmatic light. Some people gain enormously from having their needs met in a specialised environment." A forthcoming report from the enquiry team, he says, is likely to suggest a moratorium on the closure of special-school places. "Although that is not to say that every special school is sacrosanct. We need to put the individual before doctrine."

    For Brian Lamb, who chairs the Special Educational Needs Consortium, the issue is how to make the best use of all resources. "We basically back the Government's presumption towards the mainstream. It is the direction everything has been moving in.

    "What we want to see is more resources going into special education and a closer inter-relationship between special schools and mainstream schools, with more use of specialist expertise, and maybe regional specialist resources." Inclusion, done properly, is expensive, Lamb agrees, "But special schools are expensive, too. The more we can get the two worlds together, the better."

    Peter Farrell, professor of special needs at Manchester University, sees the Government jumping in response to a strong parents' lobby that says inclusion doesn't work. "But there have been a lot of myths about how special schools are very special, with more one-to-one and so on, with not a lot of evidence that that is the case. What there is evidence of is that if children with special needs mix with others, it helps to make people in society more accepting of difference."

    A second thorny issue is whether to reform the way children's special needs are identified and supported. Everyone agrees that the system of statementing, and the appeal system that backs it up, are bureaucratic, time-consuming and geographically inequitable. Both systems tend to favour articulate parents who know their rights.

    There are also deep concerns that some local authorities are making statements deliberately vague, in order to evade having to pay for specialist provision.

    The Conservatives want to replace statements with a simplified profile system, which will assign a child one of 12 levels of additional provision, and allow parents to take that money to whichever school they deem right for their child. "We need to look again at the whole process," says Sir Bob Balchin. "At the moment it is far too adversarial. In our view, it ought to be taken out of the hands of local education authorities who are both the assessors and providers."

    But many lobby groups see the system as important for protecting a child's rights and want to reform it, not scrap it. The Advisory Centre on Education, which advises 6,000 parents a year about their rights, told the select committee: "Problems with the system arise from maladministration of the system rather than the system itself, which we believe was ahead of its time."

    "The select committee is wrestling with a whole lot of deep-seated issues," says Alan Dyson, pointing out that the system of providing for children with special needs has remained fundamentally unchanged since the mid-1970s. "The Government's main priority since then has been not to turn over too many stones. There aren't any votes in reforming special education, after all. But what we have now is an education system with different structures, targets, curriculum, everything. We have to fundamentally rethink what we mean by special education, and I would hope the committee would come out at the end and say that fiddling with the system is no longer an adequate response.

    "In an ideal world, special education would not be a distinct system at all, but just part of an education system that gives due consideration to all sorts of kids, with all sorts of difficulties, in all sorts of schools."

    But this looks unlikely to come about. "The Education Bill is talking about more schools getting more autonomy," Dyson says. "The local authorities will be left with the responsibility for special needs provision, but they will have no power and no resources. It is, potentially, an absolutely unmanageable system."

     

    The best of both worlds?

    Peter Gordon runs Hazel Court school, a special school in Eastbourne for children with severe learning difficulties - 70 per cent of pupils are autistic - on the same site as a mainstream school. He also runs a further education unit for 16- to 19-year-olds alongside a local FE college.

    He believes his students get the best of both worlds. "We've got specialised staff and superb facilities here. We've got a hydrotherapy pool and a soft play area, but we've also got access to two dining halls, an assembly hall, sports facilities and the library in the mainstream school.

    "Half our children go to some lessons in the mainstream school, and loads of their youngsters come over to us every day to help with classes. They look at what our children achieve, and learn to have respect for them. This is quite a deprived part of Eastbourne, but we've never had one incident of bullying. We share the same uniform and we join in on school trips.

     "There is a strong argument for having children with moderate difficulties in mainstream schools, but the curriculum needs to be totally different for children with severe difficulties. I've seen children stuck in a classroom, isolated, where staff have no support and can't call in a psychologist or language therapist. It's heart-breaking. You do need specialised provision, but co-location is definitely the best way to do it.

    *Bericht 4

    Conservative Party 2010 manifesto:  The most vulnerable children deserve the very  highest quality of care, so we will call a  moratorium on the ideologically-driven closure of  special schools. We will end the bias towards the  inclusion of children with special needs in  mainstream schools (page 53).

    Bericht 5 Belangrijk boek voor M-decreet-debat: Special Educ. Needs: new look Mary Warnock e.a http://books.google.be/books?id=T6tHoTSw554C&pg=PA11...

    Warnock (2005: 36-38), de vroegere pleitbezorgster van radicaal inclusie onderwijs, bekende in 2005 dat zij en haar commissie zich in 1978 deeerlijk hadden vergist.  In een rapport van 2005 maakte zij een onderscheid   between the physical and emotional participation. She argues that many children with severe learning problems, while undoubtedly a physical presence in mainstream classrooms, do not feel that they are full participants. This may be brought about by the behaviour of other pupils (through various forms of bullying) or by the treatment they receive.They may, for example be excluded from various curriculum activities, and/or arrangements of within-class grouping may restrict their opportunities for interaction with the teacher rather than a classroom helper.

     




    Geef hier uw reactie door
    Uw naam *
    Uw e-mail *
    URL
    Titel *
    Reactie * Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised Shocked Confused Cool Laughing Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very sad Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink Exclamation Question Idea Arrow
      Persoonlijke gegevens onthouden?
    (* = verplicht!)
    Reacties op bericht (0)



    Archief per week
  • 30/04-06/05 2018
  • 23/04-29/04 2018
  • 16/04-22/04 2018
  • 09/04-15/04 2018
  • 02/04-08/04 2018
  • 26/03-01/04 2018
  • 19/03-25/03 2018
  • 12/03-18/03 2018
  • 05/03-11/03 2018
  • 26/02-04/03 2018
  • 19/02-25/02 2018
  • 12/02-18/02 2018
  • 05/02-11/02 2018
  • 29/01-04/02 2018
  • 22/01-28/01 2018
  • 15/01-21/01 2018
  • 08/01-14/01 2018
  • 01/01-07/01 2018
  • 25/12-31/12 2017
  • 18/12-24/12 2017
  • 11/12-17/12 2017
  • 04/12-10/12 2017
  • 27/11-03/12 2017
  • 20/11-26/11 2017
  • 13/11-19/11 2017
  • 06/11-12/11 2017
  • 30/10-05/11 2017
  • 23/10-29/10 2017
  • 16/10-22/10 2017
  • 09/10-15/10 2017
  • 02/10-08/10 2017
  • 25/09-01/10 2017
  • 18/09-24/09 2017
  • 11/09-17/09 2017
  • 04/09-10/09 2017
  • 28/08-03/09 2017
  • 21/08-27/08 2017
  • 14/08-20/08 2017
  • 07/08-13/08 2017
  • 31/07-06/08 2017
  • 24/07-30/07 2017
  • 17/07-23/07 2017
  • 10/07-16/07 2017
  • 03/07-09/07 2017
  • 26/06-02/07 2017
  • 19/06-25/06 2017
  • 05/06-11/06 2017
  • 29/05-04/06 2017
  • 22/05-28/05 2017
  • 15/05-21/05 2017
  • 08/05-14/05 2017
  • 01/05-07/05 2017
  • 24/04-30/04 2017
  • 17/04-23/04 2017
  • 10/04-16/04 2017
  • 03/04-09/04 2017
  • 27/03-02/04 2017
  • 20/03-26/03 2017
  • 13/03-19/03 2017
  • 06/03-12/03 2017
  • 27/02-05/03 2017
  • 20/02-26/02 2017
  • 13/02-19/02 2017
  • 06/02-12/02 2017
  • 30/01-05/02 2017
  • 23/01-29/01 2017
  • 16/01-22/01 2017
  • 09/01-15/01 2017
  • 02/01-08/01 2017
  • 26/12-01/01 2017
  • 19/12-25/12 2016
  • 12/12-18/12 2016
  • 05/12-11/12 2016
  • 28/11-04/12 2016
  • 21/11-27/11 2016
  • 14/11-20/11 2016
  • 07/11-13/11 2016
  • 31/10-06/11 2016
  • 24/10-30/10 2016
  • 17/10-23/10 2016
  • 10/10-16/10 2016
  • 03/10-09/10 2016
  • 26/09-02/10 2016
  • 19/09-25/09 2016
  • 12/09-18/09 2016
  • 05/09-11/09 2016
  • 29/08-04/09 2016
  • 22/08-28/08 2016
  • 15/08-21/08 2016
  • 25/07-31/07 2016
  • 18/07-24/07 2016
  • 11/07-17/07 2016
  • 04/07-10/07 2016
  • 27/06-03/07 2016
  • 20/06-26/06 2016
  • 13/06-19/06 2016
  • 06/06-12/06 2016
  • 30/05-05/06 2016
  • 23/05-29/05 2016
  • 16/05-22/05 2016
  • 09/05-15/05 2016
  • 02/05-08/05 2016
  • 25/04-01/05 2016
  • 18/04-24/04 2016
  • 11/04-17/04 2016
  • 04/04-10/04 2016
  • 28/03-03/04 2016
  • 21/03-27/03 2016
  • 14/03-20/03 2016
  • 07/03-13/03 2016
  • 29/02-06/03 2016
  • 22/02-28/02 2016
  • 15/02-21/02 2016
  • 08/02-14/02 2016
  • 01/02-07/02 2016
  • 25/01-31/01 2016
  • 18/01-24/01 2016
  • 11/01-17/01 2016
  • 04/01-10/01 2016
  • 28/12-03/01 2016
  • 21/12-27/12 2015
  • 14/12-20/12 2015
  • 07/12-13/12 2015
  • 30/11-06/12 2015
  • 23/11-29/11 2015
  • 16/11-22/11 2015
  • 09/11-15/11 2015
  • 02/11-08/11 2015
  • 26/10-01/11 2015
  • 19/10-25/10 2015
  • 12/10-18/10 2015
  • 05/10-11/10 2015
  • 28/09-04/10 2015
  • 21/09-27/09 2015
  • 14/09-20/09 2015
  • 07/09-13/09 2015
  • 31/08-06/09 2015
  • 24/08-30/08 2015
  • 17/08-23/08 2015
  • 10/08-16/08 2015
  • 03/08-09/08 2015
  • 27/07-02/08 2015
  • 20/07-26/07 2015
  • 13/07-19/07 2015
  • 06/07-12/07 2015
  • 29/06-05/07 2015
  • 22/06-28/06 2015
  • 15/06-21/06 2015
  • 08/06-14/06 2015
  • 01/06-07/06 2015
  • 25/05-31/05 2015
  • 18/05-24/05 2015
  • 11/05-17/05 2015
  • 04/05-10/05 2015
  • 27/04-03/05 2015
  • 20/04-26/04 2015
  • 13/04-19/04 2015
  • 06/04-12/04 2015
  • 30/03-05/04 2015
  • 23/03-29/03 2015
  • 16/03-22/03 2015
  • 09/03-15/03 2015
  • 02/03-08/03 2015
  • 23/02-01/03 2015
  • 16/02-22/02 2015
  • 09/02-15/02 2015
  • 02/02-08/02 2015
  • 26/01-01/02 2015
  • 19/01-25/01 2015
  • 12/01-18/01 2015
  • 05/01-11/01 2015
  • 29/12-04/01 2015
  • 22/12-28/12 2014
  • 15/12-21/12 2014
  • 08/12-14/12 2014
  • 01/12-07/12 2014
  • 24/11-30/11 2014
  • 17/11-23/11 2014
  • 10/11-16/11 2014
  • 03/11-09/11 2014
  • 27/10-02/11 2014
  • 20/10-26/10 2014
  • 13/10-19/10 2014
  • 06/10-12/10 2014
  • 29/09-05/10 2014
  • 22/09-28/09 2014
  • 15/09-21/09 2014
  • 08/09-14/09 2014
  • 01/09-07/09 2014
  • 25/08-31/08 2014
  • 18/08-24/08 2014
  • 11/08-17/08 2014
  • 04/08-10/08 2014
  • 28/07-03/08 2014
  • 21/07-27/07 2014
  • 14/07-20/07 2014
  • 07/07-13/07 2014
  • 30/06-06/07 2014
  • 23/06-29/06 2014
  • 16/06-22/06 2014
  • 09/06-15/06 2014
  • 02/06-08/06 2014
  • 26/05-01/06 2014
  • 19/05-25/05 2014
  • 12/05-18/05 2014
  • 05/05-11/05 2014
  • 28/04-04/05 2014
  • 14/04-20/04 2014
  • 07/04-13/04 2014
  • 31/03-06/04 2014
  • 24/03-30/03 2014
  • 17/03-23/03 2014
  • 10/03-16/03 2014
  • 03/03-09/03 2014
  • 24/02-02/03 2014
  • 17/02-23/02 2014
  • 10/02-16/02 2014
  • 03/02-09/02 2014
  • 27/01-02/02 2014
  • 20/01-26/01 2014
  • 13/01-19/01 2014
  • 06/01-12/01 2014
  • 30/12-05/01 2014
  • 23/12-29/12 2013
  • 16/12-22/12 2013
  • 09/12-15/12 2013
  • 02/12-08/12 2013
  • 25/11-01/12 2013
  • 18/11-24/11 2013
  • 11/11-17/11 2013
  • 04/11-10/11 2013
  • 28/10-03/11 2013
  • 21/10-27/10 2013

    E-mail mij

    Druk op onderstaande knop om mij te e-mailen.


    Gastenboek

    Druk op onderstaande knop om een berichtje achter te laten in mijn gastenboek


    Blog als favoriet !

    Klik hier
    om dit blog bij uw favorieten te plaatsen!


    Blog tegen de wet? Klik hier.
    Gratis blog op https://www.bloggen.be - Bloggen.be, eenvoudig, gratis en snel jouw eigen blog!