For a number of years I have worked part-time for a small charity based in East London. Among other things, I act as an advocate for the parents of children with special educational needs. This entails visiting their homes, most of which are on large housing estates. In recent years, I have noticed that many of these estates seem to have at least one or two youths hanging around who look as though they are only fourteen or so. Some are truanting, others have been excluded, but there are also those who have been de-registered because their parents are allegedly home educating them.
Whenever I visit a family to discuss their child's needs, I always ask if they know of any children living nearby who are home educated. This is sheer nosiness of course. Even worse, is the fact that if I can get an address I think nothing of knocking on the door and explaining that I have been visiting Mrs. X who lives on the fifth floor and that I am interested in home education. Almost invariably, I am invited in. Such invitations are less a tribute to my personal charm, which is in any case all but non-existent these days, and more to do with the fact that they think they might be able to get something out of me.
Once these parents realise that I am not employed by the local authority, they seldom bother to dissemble. The truth is that hardly any of them have ever had any intention of educating their children, either autonomously or otherwise. Why then have their children been de-registered? The reasons vary. Some have simply been unable to persuade their teenaged offspring to get out of bed in the morning and go to school. I have mentioned elsewhere that my own nephew fell into this category. Others have children who truant so regularly that they have been at risk of prosecution. Still others are parents of children who simply don't like school and can't see the point of going. Sometimes they can nag their parents into letting them stay at home on the pretext of home education.
There are sadder cases. One fourteen year old girl lived with her mother, who was mentally ill and agoraphobic. She hated it when her daughter went off to school for the day and left her alone. The daughter did not particularly enjoy school and so after a little research on the internet, she typed up a letter for her mother to sign, stating that she would home educate her daughter. The pair of them now spend the day watching television. If anybody asks, the daughter has told her mother to say, "We're autonomous." I doubt she even knows what the word means. In twenty first Century Britain this child has been abandoned by the system and now fulfils the role of nurse-companion to her sick mother. This is utterly disgraceful. Here, incidentally is a similar case from Norfolk which they gave to the Badman review;
"Faye's mother has mental and physical health problems; her elderly husband cannot fulfil the role of carer, so this has fallen to Faye. Faye's previous school did not inform our service at the time of her de-registration, so a considerable period of time elapsed before we became involved, during which time Faye had not received any education. There were various concerns about the appropriateness of home education due to Faye's home circumstances, along with her social isolation. Faye's mother refused an offer of support from Young Carers. Faye is obese and school phobic. She has regular hospital appointments relating to her obesity and associated problems and has been offered gastric band surgery when she is older. Faye's mother will not agree to any additional support, eg CAF, and has often been reluctant to meet with our service, cancelling various appointments at short notice. However, with support and encouragement over a period of three years, Faye's home education provision has improved."
I am not suggesting that autonomously educating parents are like this in general, nor that an autonomous education cannot be good for a child. The people I talk of above are at one extreme end of the home education spectrum. I rather think that the parents on this Blog lie at the other end; they are very committed to giving their children the best possible education, by whatever approach they choose. Somewhere between these two types lie the bulk of home educating parents, some of them doing well and others perhaps not quite as well. There might be parents who took their children from school intending to educate them and found they were not capable of doing so. Others who start well and then begin to flag, maybe need a little help and encouragement.
What I do know is that the current system is so slack that it enables many parents to take their children out of school without making any provision whatsoever for their education. I believe this to be a bad thing and it is for this reason that I am in favour of some of the recommendations in the Badman Report. I am aware that these might well inconvenience some genuine home educators, but I feel that this is a price worth paying.
What a load of crap that is! you want to attack home educators because of a very very small number of cases and inpose crazy badman ideas on all home educators.when the LEA are so busy visiting good home educators there not have the time to help the childre who really do need help!
ReplyDeleteIts a good job you did not knock at our door as we would have told you to f off!
It comes down to trust and it is clear that you like uncle Badman/DCSF/Balls just do not trust parents did something happen to you when you where young?did your mum and dad let you down? or a close family member? how does your daughter feel about you not trusting parents?
The thing is, Simon, how many homes have you been invited into? Five? Ten? More than this? Are we to believe that you have been acting as some kind of undercover researcher over years, assembling an evidence base? You are generalising from your limited experiences - something we all tend to do from time to time.
ReplyDeleteI suppose you will take the line that it doesn't matter if there are a couple of hundred or many thousands of children in these situations. You believe that the Badman recommendations are ok because,
"I am aware that these might well inconvenience some genuine home educators, but I feel that this is a price worth paying."
This "price worth paying" is a red herring. How will it help children in situations like those you describe for thousands of children to be 'inspected' where there is no cause for concern? How will stretching already over-burdened EOTAS or EWO teams help them to reach and offer help to families that need it?
Since there are no reliable and objective data Allie, we are all of us forced to rely upon and to some degree generalise from, our own limited experience. My experience of home education is not limited to what I have observed while snooping around on the housing estates of Hackney though. I have belonged to the HE-UK and EO lists for a few years and seen parents post on there saying, in effect, "I have had a row with my son's school and de-registered him. What do I do now?" I have also had persoanl experience of family and friends who de-registered their kids and then failed to provide any sort of education. The fact that in my, as you call it, "limited" experience I have encountered so many cases, suggests to me that it is not a rare phenomenon. This is also borne out by the evidence from LAs such as Norfolk, whom I quoted in the above piece.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a perfect world. Taking action will harm some children and help others. The same is true of doing nothing. All we can do is look at the available evidence and make a choice. I have done this, but there is absolutely no reason to suppose that mine is the correct choice. In a sense, all choices in this matter are likely to be wrong, because all choices will result in harm for some children and inconvenience for some parents. This includes the choice of doing nothing and letting the current situation remain unchanged.
A quick thought, if the child was truanting and clearly voting with their feet about not wanting to go to school, how is it better to keep them there, disturbing classes and the hope of anybody else wanting to learn, rather than be at home, whether they are learning or not?
ReplyDeleteThey'll be on the streets whether they're deregistered or registered.
You're still not getting to the heart of the problem Simon, yet you advocate a solution that will harm genuine autonomous educators and will make zero difference to that 'estate teenager' who isn't being educated at home, because he'll go back to school and not be educated there either.
simon- thats what there said in orkney islands where those children where taken away on grounds of abuse none was found lives jobs destryed but it was all for your own good! you wanna read what the children said about it terrible the fathers had to flee the island yet had done nothing at all but it was all fro there own good! uncle badamn way
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, we did say that the people shouldn't be frightened of the state and the state should be frightened of its people. But guys, we didn't mean you had to be frightened of small children too.
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Children, Schools and Families have recently written to the Information Commissioner stating that they are having difficulties in complying with requests from home educators. (You will remember that the government launched an inquiry into HE which concluded that it was unregulated and was therefore bad). Confronted by an array of FoI requests, the DCSF now claim that there has been "harassment and a display of hostility towards Mr Graham Badman", the civil servant who was appointed to head the inquiry. They say that they need to consider the implications of this behaviour for their interpretation of Section 38 of the FoI Act, which "applies to information that if disclosed would be likely to put the physical or mental health or the safety of any individual at risk or greater risk". In other words they want to withhold information because its release might upset Mr Badman.
DCSF staff have helpfully provided some examples of some of this harassment and hostility. Here's one. It's strong stuff, so I've put it below the fold for the benefit of the squeamish...
So it seems that the DCSF is claiming, in all seriousness, that a twelve second video posted by some children on YouTube amounts to harassment. You have to wonder about the kind of people who accuse a section of the community of being child abusers and then shout "harassment" when some kids make fun of them. Perhaps Mr Badman needs to develop a backbone commensurate with his very large compensation package (he was on £185k when running education in Kent into the ground). Either that or get a job more suited to his sensitive nature. Sweeping streets perhaps. Or stacking supermarket shelves. Nobody shouts at shelf stackers do they?
It's interesting to look at the DCSF letter int he light of the Information Commissioner's guidance, which is quite categorical about the use of the s38 exemption:
[I]t would be a mistake to equate danger to mental health with a risk of distress and the Commissioner considers that the endangerment of mental health implies that disclosure might lead to or exacerbate an existing mental illness or psychological disorder.
Despite the somewhat otherworldly nature of Badman's recommendations - civil servants interviewing children without the parents and so on - it is rather unlikely that even Ed Balls would be so daft as to appoint someone with an existing mental illness to run a major policy review. It is therefore more likely that the DCSF bureaucats know that they can say anything, no matter how ludicrous, to put off the FoI requests because the Information Commissioner lacks the staff to do anything about it and Ed Balls lacks the, well, cojones.
This is borne out by the letter. Andrew Partridge, the "Information Rights Manager" who wrote it must have training in FoI law. He must know that there is not a cat's chance in hell of this ultimately getting by the ICO. But he doesn't care. It seems clear that he and Badman are not operating in the public interest but in the interest of the bureaucracy - in their own interests if truth be told. Really, with a change of government coming, people like this should be shown the door.
Meanwhile, the efforts of the HE community have clearly started to worry Mr Badman and his team. A barrage of FoI requests have turned up all sorts of statistical failings in the report. Badman is now franticly pleading with local authorities to provide some more evidence to back up his findings ahead of a House of Commons select committee hearing later in the year. This shows us two facts very clearly. Firstly the initial recommendations were put together without a good evidential base and secondly that the report had a predetermined outcome.
But we knew that.
What a load of BULL**** you talk. HE does not have set hours, which means that education can happen whenever, so some kids may be hanging around during the day.....
ReplyDeleteSo can you tell me why these problems couldn't be solved by ContactPoint and existing laws? They could avoid wasting scarce resources on visits to tens of thousands of home educators who are managing fine thank you very much, and instead spend the money saved on those who might actually benefit from extra support. If they have the spare millions to spend on visiting all home educators, wouldn't it be better spent on providing an alternative education for those that hate school but for whom home education isn't a good fit?
ReplyDeleteHow do you think Badman's recommendations will help the children you are talking about?
there not got the money to spend on crazy Badman ideas Balls has saids cutback will have to happen the money is just not there to waste on his crazy ideas it just pie in the school and also in truth those LEA do not care about children who have been chucked out of school.i be amazed if DCSF come up with extra money to fund this so who will pay? cant see counci ltax payers who said there children to a state school being very happy to see money wasted on home educators can you simon? those people wil lwant any money to be spent on there school not runing around after home educators
ReplyDeleteTo begin with Sharon, schools are still not reporting de-registrations to their local authority. This can mean children effectively vanishing. Even if the LA is aware of a child removed from school there is little that they can do to investigate if the school has concerns. Some children are pulled out of school and the school is worried that they will not be receiving an education. The local authority contacts the parents, who respond with an educational philosophy and maybe a diary of activities which the child is supposedly undertaking. Even when there is a strong suspicion that the child is not really receiving an education, there is little that can be done.
ReplyDeleteNew legislation would make sure that information about children withdrawn from school actually went to the LA and also the DCSF would have oversight of the situation. Because sometimes the loss of a difficult pupil is a good thing for the school and also for the local authority because they do not have to worry about making special provision, there is a tendency to let things slide. Involvement by the DCSF might well put a stop to this implicit condoning of such practices by the LA.
I agree with you completely with you and Gizzie about making provision for those pupils who are not suited to school but for whom nothing is currently done.
Gisela, home educating is not an easy task and sometimes parents need help. Some parents who have fallen out with the schools are so angry that they refuse to have anything to do with "the authorities". As things stand, they know very well that they may safely do so and that the chances of being issued with an SAO are very slim. If the law was changed, such people would in effect be compelled to engage with their local authority. I think that in some cases this would be a good thing and that those parents who needed help would find that it was worth having. I don't believe for a moment that all this is going to affect most ordinary home educators. I think that the proposed changes in the law are not aimed at autonomous educators per se, but at those who are not educating their children.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with you about needing extra provision specifically targeted at young people who cannot really get on at school. The problem is that a lot of these are EBD youths who uused to have their own special schools. Since they were closed down, they are stuck in ordinary clasrooms with disasterous results.
that is crap simon involing the DCSF will not change anything for those children the DCSF tend to always agree with the local LEA the DCSF very rare for them to not side with LEA over a pupil.
ReplyDeleteSome parents who have fallen out with the schools are so angry that they refuse to have anything to do with "the authorities".
these parents have every right to be angry with there school and LEA you think you can force peopel to engage with the very same people who caused the problems? your crazy if you think that! Parents/children have been let down by there LEA that is why thered do not want anything to do with them. it be the the same crap lea officers who where dealing with the complaints about the school and often side withthe school!
LEA officers are rubbish at there job and have nothing to oofer home educated children.
Why are you so in love with LEA officers come on tell us?
"To begin with Sharon, schools are still not reporting de-registrations to their local authority."
ReplyDeleteSo you think home educators should do the LA job for them and be forced to register? Why wouldn't this be solved by ContactPoint?
"Some children are pulled out of school and the school is worried that they will not be receiving an education. The local authority contacts the parents, who respond with an educational philosophy and maybe a diary of activities which the child is supposedly undertaking. Even when there is a strong suspicion that the child is not really receiving an education, there is little that can be done."
If the parents are clever enough to fool them by post, why do you think they would not be able to do the same during a visit? Why is it acceptable for home educators to be assumed to be guilty of lying and have to prove their innocence? If an LA has doubts they can ask further questions and if they still have doubts, issue a SAO. A court has decided in the past that in certain situations a visit can be required, so it's not as if the courts always side with the parents. If the law changes, people can still refuse visits and force an LA to issue a SAO, so where is the benefit in checking on every home educator, spreading scarce resources even more thinly?
"As things stand, they know very well that they may safely do so and that the chances of being issued with an SAO are very slim. If the law was changed, such people would in effect be compelled to engage with their local authority."
How will they be compelled to engage with their LA? According to the consultation the LA will ultimately issue a SAO, so how will the situation really change for those that refuse to engage?
By the way Anonymous, you do not need to resort to asterixes, which I have always reagrded as the stupidest sort of sham gentility. If you think that I am talking Bullshit, just say so. We are all grownups here and I doubt anybody will be offended by the use of such a word. This isn't the Daily Mail, you know!
ReplyDeleteI am of course well aware that home education does not only happen from nine to three; I spent over ten years as a home educating parent myself. I was going by what parents told me when I asked about education. If somebody tells me that she is not interested in education and is to busy to do anything with Johnny, then I am inclined to take her word for it. Of course Johnny might be pursuing a course in Sanskrit in the privacy of his bedroom, but if you knew the sort of home about which I am talking, you would find this improbable in the extreme.
you are talking crap simon!
ReplyDeletewhy do you always side with the LEA/badman and mistrust parents so much?
Hampshire County Council employ LEA officers who do not tell the truth!
what would you say if a lie was told about your daughter by an LEA officer? you say it is ok would you?
OK Si you are talking aload of fucking bullshit.
ReplyDeletesimon always talks a load of bullshit nothing new there! i want a school attendance order i want to wear it like a badge of honour.Where my school attendance order Hampshire LEA come on send it im soooooooooooo scared!
ReplyDeletecome on Jim McGilvery(he the attendance manger for Hampshire thought he was dead) send that school attendance i want one send 2 we want to frame it!
ReplyDelete"Fucking bullshit" I am happy to read; abbreviating my name to "Si" is quite another matter. No wonder you wish to remain anonymous, nobody has ever had the cheek to do this before!
ReplyDeletesimon -send them LEA officers around to my house i have a nice surspise for them!
ReplyDeleteSharon, fooling people by post is generally quite easy. If you are asked a question, you can sit down with your family and work out the most advantageous answer. Having a conversation is a little trickier. I think you know this.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea which of the recommendations that Graham Badman made, if any, will ultimately become law. Recommendation 2 about defining a suitable education would certainly change the game somewhat, as would Recommendation 11 which would extend opportunities for post 14 vocational training. I can see a lot of good in the report, but like everybody else, do not know how much will be implemented.
So you do think that home educating parents should be assumed to be lying until they prove otherwise? They should also have to provide a higher level of proof to the LA than is currently required by courts of law?
ReplyDeleteI think that we should be open minded about the possibility of some home educators lying. To prove a negative is a damned tricky thing to do. Without a clear definition of what constitutes an education, how on Earth could you prove whether a child was receiving one or not? As it stands, it is all but impossible to prove that a child is not being educated, despite the fact that some are manifestly not.
ReplyDeleteI think that the law itself needs to change, Sharon. As I am sure we both know, the accepted definition currently of a suitable education is one which is sufficient;
"1. to prepare the children for life in modern civilised society, and
2. to enable them to achieve their full potential."
This is so vague and all embracing as to be practically meaningless. Does it include literacy, the ability to carry out basic arithmetical operations? Or does life in a modern society only require the ability to operate the television remote control or search the internet? Who will decide what a child's "full potential" is?
As a result of this vagueness, when a parent is brought before the courts, as occasionally happens, the magistrates are quite unable to decide if a suitable education is being provided. They err on the side of caution.
no questions will be asked here simon we tell the nice LEA to F off sit down in our front garden why we till LEA to F OFF and take your crap reports with you! i set the pitbull on them! he tear them to bits! save feding him!
ReplyDeletebilly and jill are the pitbulls dogs names and very loyal there are no LEA officer will get though front garden you dont want to upset billy and jill those teeth will go just though a leg and may tear it off! those dogs we brough up with our fair hands from a puppy when they where abanded so there very loyal so you dont want come into our garden unvited! hope there do and want see billy jill in action i film it!
ReplyDeletei have always find it more inpotant to know how to operate the tv remote and sky plus hd yes put your feet up and relax with a sky movie! and billy and jill seating by our feet any one want come in? there want to greet you in the only way there know i think the LEA officer may be ok if he lays still when Bill grabs him by the throat! he likes to do that! he teeth can go straight though a half leg of lamb amazing to think what strenght is there!
ReplyDeleteany one for a play station or xbox game?
ReplyDeleteJulie -you want play play station or xbox game?i tell the pitballs to let you in but not simon!
ReplyDeleteSimon!
ReplyDeleteAs one home educating parent to another... you are weird!!!
I guess you are at the end of your home edding years? Will this actually affect you any more?
*bangs her head against a wall for everyone*
mary- he sure is weird sucking up to uncle Badman.Uncle badman used simon ideas for forced home visits and the interviewing the child on its own the pair of them along with his daughter? thought this all up Simon is a traiter to home educators. i got it in wrting that the government wants to see mandatory registration and regualar monitoring becasue some home educators like simon support this! it is signed by dawn Primarolo.
ReplyDeletehow come he get to met with uncle Badman but many home eduators and the children where just ingorned by uncle badman. that is a f cheek you give him tea and cake simon when he pop in on you. your a traiter to home educators!
"I think that we should be open minded about the possibility of some home educators lying. To prove a negative is a damned tricky thing to do."
ReplyDeleteIf a person is taken to court for failure to comply with a SAO (as in the current and planned system) they will have to supply evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities. It's only in a criminal courts that the evidence needs to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. You seem to be suggesting that a LA should be able to apply the level of evidence required for a criminal court case to home educators without even the presumption of innocence a defendant would have! Also, a court will accept evidence in any form the defendant presents it. Again you seem to be in favour of LAs having more powers than the courts as you find it acceptable that they should be able to prescribe how evidence is presented.
"Does it include literacy, the ability to carry out basic arithmetical operations? Or does life in a modern society only require the ability to operate the television remote control or search the internet?"
Do you really think a judge or magistrate would decide that literacy and numeracy are not required for life in a modern society? Get real (as you've said in the past).
"Who will decide what a child's "full potential" is?
Does anyone do this for school children? How do they do this?
"As a result of this vagueness, when a parent is brought before the courts, as occasionally happens, the magistrates are quite unable to decide if a suitable education is being provided. They err on the side of caution.
Please provide links to court cases that support this theory. I don't believe this is the case.
Anonymous, are you really a home educator, or are you just posting to throw insults?
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of Simon's last post. Children should be taught literacy and numeracy, and failure to do so should be penalised.
It strikes me as odd that one of the many reasons given by home educators for not using schools (or removing their children from them) is because many children apparently leave without learning to read or write, yet so many home educators (perhaps even the same ones) don't seem to care that children are being neglected under the guise of home education.
Mam'Goudig said,
ReplyDelete"I agree with much of Simon's last post. Children should be taught literacy and numeracy, and failure to do so should be penalised."
So at what age should children be literate and numerate? Should parents of illiterate school children also be penalised? How exactly should parents of illiterate and innumerate children be penalised?
"It strikes me as odd that one of the many reasons given by home educators for not using schools (or removing their children from them) is because many children apparently leave without learning to read or write, yet so many home educators (perhaps even the same ones) don't seem to care that children are being neglected under the guise of home education."
Why do you think current laws are insufficient?
Sharon, I think that children who are being home educated should be taught to read and write. It has certainly happened that a magistrate has in the past decided that even though a child could not read that he was still receiving a suitable education. We have had this debate before and are unlikely to agree. All the evidence is against children acquiring literacy in the same way that expressive language develops.
ReplyDeleteThe current laws are insufficient firstly because they do not define what is meant by a suitable education and also because it is ridiculously easy to evade any serious enquiry as to what educational activity is taking place. The law is also insufficient in that it is quite possible to de-register a child from a school and for the local authority to be unaware of this.
who cares about children who are not geting an education i dont! so what? if your so worried about them why dont you pay fo them to have tutors or go to a private school?
ReplyDeleteIt does not brother me if some childre nare not geting a n education more inportant to worry abou than that
i could not care at all if a few children are not geting an education im only intersted in my child! just like simon is making sure everything is just right for his dd.
ReplyDeleteWho cares so what a few kids not at school not one is brothered about them and the kids know it lEA dpont want them the schools dont want them simon dont want cos if he did he let the mmove in with him? those few kids know that they are not wanted by any one! they not fooled by uncle Badman he dont want as well no one want them in truth?
oh god me spelling is crap any one to report us to Hampshire county council ask for Jim McGilvery he not dead and may be able to help you!
ReplyDeleteSharon, I suppose that any child without extenuating circumstances (SEN, for example) should be making progress in literacy by the age of 9 or 10. Some will start to read much earlier, but most should be making some headway by that age.
ReplyDeleteParents of school children have expressly relied on the school to support their child's education, but I would still expect those children to be literate by the age of 9 or 10. Special needs notwithstanding, I can't imagine any parent *not* wanting their children to be literate and numerate by that age. If mine were at school, and still struggling with literacy and numeracy by 9 or 10, I'd be very concerned, and would be taking action. Actually, I'd have taken action. Literacy and numeracy are too important to ignore.
The penalties should depend on exactly what those parents are doing to support their children in the first place. If the parents are doing everything in their power to support their child, well those parents deserve every available support to help them continue supporting their child. If, however, it transpires that the child has been left to their own devices under the guise of "autonomy", or "the school was in charge of that - not my problem" that's a very different matter. Either would be negligent parenting.
Anonymous. No problem. If you behave like a troll, I've no problem treating you as one.
Mam'Goudig
"Sharon, I suppose that any child without extenuating circumstances (SEN, for example) should be making progress in literacy by the age of 9 or 10. Some will start to read much earlier, but most should be making some headway by that age."
ReplyDeleteCan I assume then that you are against autonomous education, Mam'Goudig? Two of my children have not chosen to learn to read until they were 13, how should I be penalised? Do you think I should be fined, sent to prison or my children forced to go to school?
"Parents of school children have expressly relied on the school to support their child's education, but I would still expect those children to be literate by the age of 9 or 10."
So if a school child reaches 12 without being able to read (as a friend of one of my children did), should their parent be fined, sent to prison or forced to home educate? The parent is still legally responsible for the child's education even if they use school. Why should school using parents be treated differently to home educating parents? What about the parents of the 1 in 5 school children who leave school functionally illiterate, how should they be penalised for failing to provide their children with a suitable education?
"Special needs notwithstanding, I can't imagine any parent *not* wanting their children to be literate and numerate by that age."
If they are busy learning other things and a lack of literacy and numeracy is not holding them back, why would it be a problem? In school it's important to be able to read and write because work is set with this assumption. The same does not apply at home.
"The penalties should depend on exactly what those parents are doing to support their children in the first place."
But what form should the penalties take? Fines? Prison?
"If, however, it transpires that the child has been left to their own devices under the guise of "autonomy", or "the school was in charge of that - not my problem" that's a very different matter. Either would be negligent parenting."
Exactly. But parents of school children are not held to account if their child is illiterate or innumerate, so why should home educating parents be held to a higher standard?
"Sharon, I think that children who are being home educated should be taught to read and write. It has certainly happened that a magistrate has in the past decided that even though a child could not read that he was still receiving a suitable education."
ReplyDeleteCan you give me a link to information about this case? What age was the child?
"We have had this debate before and are unlikely to agree. All the evidence is against children acquiring literacy in the same way that expressive language develops."
I've not made that claim, there are some similarities, but acquiring language has the disadvantage of a critical period, unlike literacy. If children do not hear language during the critical period they will be unable to learn to speak grammatically. The same is not true of literacy. An adult who has not learnt to speak as a child would be unable to learn to speak grammatically, but an illiterate adult is perfectly capable of becoming literate. Some children appear to learn to read with little direct teaching but they still need access to lots of books, they need to be read to, see others reading, have letters pointed out to them, play eye-spy etc. Others need more direct teaching in addition and I've seen both types of learning within my family.
"The current laws are insufficient firstly because they do not define what is meant by a suitable education and also because it is ridiculously easy to evade any serious enquiry as to what educational activity is taking place."
How do you know? I don't believe this is true and you've not provided any evidence that this is the case. If it's so easy for you to judge over the internet, why is it impossible for an LA to judge after receiving evidence and further questions as necessary?
"The law is also insufficient in that it is quite possible to de-register a child from a school and for the local authority to be unaware of this.
Only if the school fails to carry out their legally required duties. Why should home educators do their job for them? And why is it a problem anyway with ContactPoint on the way?
Usual mixed message here from me...first of all I find it hard to understand why a home educating parent shouldn't value reading, writing etc - and thus encourage their children to master those skills as quickly as possible. I have 2 reasons for doing so - first of all we live in a world full of great literature which I want my children to enjoy and benefit from... so I wouldn't want to deny them that - and even though I am certainly not an AE advocate, being able to read and write certainly opens more choices to the children to choose in the first place. Secondly I am a Christian - one of the people of the Book -so I want my children to be able to read it for themselves.
ReplyDeleteBut realistically some children struggle with reading - in and out of school. I do suspect that most of those children would do a lot better if they had concentrated 1:1 help with suitable material and home education should give plenty of opportunity for that. I do recognise that reading is however not possible for some - since my profoudly disabled son ( who is at school) has no spoken language and only 1 sign, he would not read with all the help in the world. Other children may be less obviously disabled but have difficulties which can neither be blamed on school or parent.
My main problem is though whether school is better than home for the illiterate..yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it better to be a schooled illiterate and facing bullying, or a home educated illiterate but happy? As I am always saying I do suspect that some of the non reading home educators may be in that position by their choices (ie if you adopt an AE approach and the child chooses not to read) but many others need more support and help with thieir difficulties rather than threats of refusal to register.
"Usual mixed message here from me...first of all I find it hard to understand why a home educating parent shouldn't value reading, writing etc - and thus encourage their children to master those skills as quickly as possible."
ReplyDeleteI value reading, writing etc, I have a book on the go constantly and read around 80 books a year on average. You know how much I write! But two of my children did not want to read or write before they were 13. We read to them as much as they wanted (occasionally we might have to say, I'll do it in half an hour, etc) so maybe they didn't see a need? They both gained great pleasure from owning, handling and looking through books and always requested books for birthdays and christmas, they just weren't that bothered about learning to read. We had our doubts of course, and periodically tried to enforce reading lessons for the eldest but it was like trying to pull teeth. We really felt that if we continued piling on the pressure it would ultimately put them off reading for pleasure. Eventually they reached both a point where they wanted to learn to read. One just needed a little help getting started with the Oxford Reading Tree, the other has needed more intensive help and we are currently working through the Toe by Toe phonics programme as well as Enid Blyton's Famous Five books.
"My main problem is though whether school is better than home for the illiterate..yes, sometimes, but not always. Is it better to be a schooled illiterate and facing bullying, or a home educated illiterate but happy?"
Exactly. My eldest late reader gained GCSEs (including English) after 1 year of college. Our child's school friend, who didn't learn to read until they were 12 and eventually taught themselves from computer games at home, hated school (who wouldn't after failing for 8 years), truanted, and left school with no qualifications. He tried college but also dropped out of that because it was too like school. We have now helped him enrol with the OU and have offered support in the hope that he might have a positive experience of education. The people Simon is talking about, those who drop out of secondary school should, in theory, already be literate and numerate. If they have failed to gain this after 8+ years of school it's unlikely that they will improve by staying at secondary school because they are just not set up for teaching reading and writing and by that age, children have become expert at hiding their problems so the school probably doesn't even know that they can't read.
Well of course Sharon, there is something in what you say. I certainly know of children at school who are all but illiterate and have managed to conceal the fact from everybody! However, the fact remains that schools do undertake systematic instruction in reading and that a number of home educating parents do not. There is definitely a correlation between being taught to read and learning to read; indeed, the two often seem to go hand in hand. For this reason, I think that it is a good idea in general to teach children to read.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that some children fail to acquire literacy at school does not seem to me a sound reason not to try and teach children at home. Rather, it suggests to me that the school was unable to provide enought patient, one to one tuition, something we as home educating parents are ideally placed to provide.
"However, the fact remains that schools do undertake systematic instruction in reading and that a number of home educating parents do not. There is definitely a correlation between being taught to read and learning to read; indeed, the two often seem to go hand in hand. For this reason, I think that it is a good idea in general to teach children to read."
ReplyDeleteBut don't you think it's significant that 1 in adults in this country are functionally illiterate and 19 out of 105 informally educated children in Alan Thomas' study were late readers? Seems a bit too much of a coincidence for these figures not to be connected.
'that 1 in adults' should read 'that 1 in 5 adults'
ReplyDeleteBTW, how would you have recommended I force my child to have reading lessons. We tried reading games, we tried star charts, 5 minute lessons (used to read about 5 words very slowly), etc, but they still refused to accept lessons. Should I have threatened them with punishments? Forced them to sit at the table until they had finished a section of a work book or page of a book? Maybe tied them to a chair? What do you do if you have a very stubborn child who doesn't want to learn to read? How far would you go?
ReplyDelete"What do you do if you have a very stubborn child who doesn't want to learn to read? How far would you go?"
ReplyDeleteAh that's a whole new area isn't it? Children, even from what may be regarded as 'closely regulated' familes do choose, sooner or later, to go their own way. My gut feeling is that in most caes rebellion/refusal to cooperate/ saying "no!" (however you want to describe it) tends to be a frequent response in small thing from the early years eg I ask my toddler to say "thank you" and he refuses, but increases in its inevitability and power as the teen years go by. So proverbs about horses and water come to mind: but I sort of think though it is also a matter of parental expectation. If I keep expecting my child to say "thank you" etc, then I may be disappointed some of the time, especially when a grumpy teenager, but it may become a positive habit; if a parent expects a child to read and keeps reinfocing opportunities to do so while young then they will take up some of those opportunities and it will become part of the natural expectation of daily life. So that is my understanding- it is matter of parental desire rather than just a childs willingness.
However that probably sounds like I am making judgements on your parenting style... and I tend to avoid that...whatver you do you are happy with, and hey, there are plenty of people around who want support to do things differently, so my view is I will stick to them! You are perfectly happy with the position yu have adopted and that is the most important thing. Hope that makes some sort of not to judgemental sense this early- been wrestling with the problems of exam entry for a Novemeber maths module...now whay do so many home educators have children with unisex first names that sound like surnames...so confusing!!
I suppose that some children will resist the idea of learning to read, whether they are at school or learning at home. What I am opposed to is the idea that children have a pre-programmed age when they will start to read and that the style of education does not affect this. This idea, based upon the American notion of Reading Readiness seems quite popular among some autonomous home educators. Some will say things like, "She will learn when she is ready, not because I push her."
ReplyDeleteSharon is quite right, a certain percentage of adults are illiterate and this might be the case however they were taught. I have two things against this. The first is a personal objection that the figure is pretty well one in five. This is a proportion that writers for popular magazines recognise well, because we always trot it out to support any contention. For example if I were writing about cars, I might well claim, "An astonishing one in five drivers never change their oil". Or how about, "Research shows that as many as one in five men have extra marital affairs". Or even "a recent survey suggests that around one in five cats suffer from worms". Keep an eye out, you will be surprised just how often that one in five proportion crops up.
More seriously, the fact that the more effort is put into teaching reading in a calm, one to one environment, the earlier the children tend to start reading, cannot be a coincidence. Think about parents who use the Glenn Doman method, for example. On the other hand, autonomously educating parents frequently seem to have children who are quite late in learning to read, with thirteen not being particularly uncommon. I think there is a direct connection. A more interesting question would be, "Does it matter?". Do late reading children catch up and get just as much from reading and literacy as those who started very young?
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletesimon -send them LEA officers around to my house i have a nice surspise for them!'
Yes, Peter?
You KEEP saying this.
So, tell us then. You clearly REEEEEEEALLY want someone to ask.
What is your nice surprise? {yawn}
Julie said,
ReplyDelete"So that is my understanding- it is matter of parental desire rather than just a childs willingness. However that probably sounds like I am making judgements on your parenting style... and I tend to avoid that..."
I would probably have said the same but these children had exactly the same environment as another child who learnt to read at around 5 years of age. The only difference appears to be in their attitude to making the effort to decode the words. They all loved books, enjoyed learning from them, having them read to them, handling them, buying and owning them, etc. I asked them yesterday why my late readers didn't want to learn to read before 13, one said because they didn't enjoy reading, the other said they couldn't be bothered. With both it was the perceived need to read in a modern society the spurred them on to make the necessary effort. So although they didn't particularly enjoy learning to read, they had a good enough reason to overcome this by that age.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"What I am opposed to is the idea that children have a pre-programmed age when they will start to read and that the style of education does not affect this. This idea, based upon the American notion of Reading Readiness seems quite popular among some autonomous home educators."
I thought reading readiness was the groundwork necessary before reading can practically happen? They need good spoken language, involvement with books and a good awareness of them, phonemic awareness, seeing others enjoying reading, understand the concept of print (text represents words, we read from left to right, the spaces are significant) etc. A child's early experience of literacy related activities are highly correlated with a child's latter success with reading. School children who come from homes where books are valued learn to read more easily than those who don't. It's not just a case of, "she will learn when she is ready, not because I push her", it's more a case of 'she will start to learn to read when she has the necessary background knowledge to make that possible'. Attempting to teach reading without this knowledge would be like attempting to teach a child written maths before they have learnt to count real objects. Lack of phonemic awareness when a child is taught to read has even been suggested as a cause of dyslexia in some children.
"Sharon is quite right, a certain percentage of adults are illiterate and this might be the case however they were taught. I have two things against this. The first is a personal objection that the figure is pretty well one in five."
I absolutely do not believe that 1 in 5 people cannot learn to read! My theory is that for 1 in 5 people, the ideal time for them to learn to read is later than for the 4 in 5 who are able to learn at the 'usual' age. At school this is a problem because they are not designed for late readers and many never learn or learn badly as a result. At home the opposite is the case and Alan Thomas found that late readers very easily learnt to read:
"In light of this [the usual effect of late reading, that the child does not catch up and the deficit in reading age widens as they get older], a wholly unexpected finding was the number of children who learned to read 'late', even as late as 10 or 11 years of age. Even more surprising was that starting to read late had, as far as could be ascertained, no adverse effect on intellectual development, self-worth, or even subsequent attainment in literacy. In general these 'late' readers soon caught up with and passed the reading level commensurate with their ages and, in common with most other home educated children, went on to thoroughly enjoy reading."
I've no idea why this proportion of people might do better as late readers. Maybe some people are more practical by nature and need to have a good reason (by their own lights) for putting the effort into learning to read. Maybe the research that found significant changes in areas of adolescent brains related to abstract thinking is an important pointer. Maybe these changes are a necessary pre-requisite to reading for some people.
"The first is a personal objection that the figure is pretty well one in five. This is a proportion that writers for popular magazines recognise well, because we always trot it out to support any contention."
ReplyDeleteAn irrational reason for disliking a statistic if ever I've heard one! Alan Thomas found that 19 out of 105 children (those aged at least 8) in his study were late readers, so just over 1 in 5. The figure for 1 in 5 illiterate adults comes from research quoted by the education minister a few years back (the spur for their poorly designed adult literacy drive) and incidentally matches the more recent 1 in 5 figure for those leaving primary school without reaching appropriate targets.
"A more interesting question would be, "Does it matter?". Do late reading children catch up and get just as much from reading and literacy as those who started very young?"
In my experience with home educating, no, I have found the same as Alan Thomas, it makes absolutely no difference. I know several late and several early readers who are now young adults and it's impossible to tell one from the other from their current reading habits or educational attainments to date. Obviously the situation for late readers at school is very different. These children generally never catch up, the deficit in reading age tends to widen as they get older and obviously, progress in other areas dependent on literacy are equally affected. Their self estimate is also badly affected by years of failing. I still find it incredible that children can reach 12 (as my child's friend did), unable to read without the school being aware (or possibly not caring) and continuing to set written work, tests, homework, etc for them.
Another interesting question would be, is there any benefit in late reading? Some have claimed that late readers tend to have better memories than early readers, possibly because they have used it more as they are not able to look facts up at will? My child is also gaining great satisfaction from their progress in learning to read at 13, something my early reader cannot remember.