.
Part of Recommendation 1 of the Badman Report seems to be causing a great deal of anxiety to some home educating parents. This is the eighth section of that recommendation, which stipulates that parents should draw up an account of their educational approach and set out what they hope their child will achieve over the next twelve months. Try as I might, I cannot see why anybody would object to this.
I think most parents who teach their own child, no matter what their approach, probably have some idea of what they hope their child will be able to do in a years time that they cannot do now. They may hope that their child will become a more fluent reader. They might desire their child to use paragraphs in their writing, pass Grade 1 piano, be able to swim a length, ride a bike or master basic arithmetic. Few of us have detailed aims and projected outcomes, but most of us have a vague notion. I can see no reason not to share these hopes with officers from the local authority.
The only reason that I could understand a reluctance to do so would be if there would be a bad consequence if the child failed to reach the goals which I had set, but there is no hint of anything of this sort in Graham Badman's report. It is simply suggested that every year, officers from the LA will visit the family and see how the child is doing, using as a yardstick the parents' own plans and desired outcomes. I can find no mention of children being tested, much less the possibility of failure resulting in the child being forced to return to school.
All this seems to me to be a good thing. It might help to focus the parents' upon the enterprise which they have undertaken. I have no doubt that if at the back of one's mind is the knowledge that somebody will be casting an eye over what has been done from an educational viewpoint, it will encourage people to think hard about what their child is doing and how they are developing. When nobody else is watching, there can be a horrible temptation to let things drift a bit and the very existence of a plan which others have seen might tend to guard against this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We dont want LEA casting an eye over us thank you the very same people who caused the problems in the first place.What would happen if you failed there test? I think we know dont we school attendace order back on that merry go round.and all the threats(all for your own good of course)
ReplyDeleteWhy is it Simon that you love LEA so much but distrust parent? what is it about LEA you so like?
its just a load of crap and your be pleased to hear no visits here or casting an eye or anthing like that.i will tell them to F off if that helps!!
"When nobody else is watching, there can be a horrible temptation to let things drift a bit..."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are like this, Mr Webb. I am not. Or perhaps you manfully resisted this temptation but think that the next generation of home edders coming up behind you are made of lesser stuff and need to be given some sort of bureaucratic bridle to keep them in line.
"Few of us have detailed aims and projected outcomes, but most of us have a vague notion. I can see no reason not to share these hopes with officers from the local authority ...Try as I might, I cannot see why anybody would object to this." My chief objection is actually concealed in your own comments. Legislation piled on recommendation has ensured that within schools, teachers spend a great deal of time on pretty charts and tick boxes and Excel files of test scores; this all began as a sweetly reasonable requirement to provide general plans of the sort you like. In others words (my mother's), "Give them an inch and they take a yard." Many home edders are ex-teachers and recognise the bad smell of micromanagment rising off the pages of the Badman Review.
PS I am anonymous because the internet is not always a safe place to have an opinion, especially if Gragrindian LEA advisors are really lurking here to gather info on the baby-eating dissenters from Comrade Brown's Five Year Plan.
I'm far from convinced that LA officers are going to have the time or inclination to micromanage home educating parents. Of course I was talking about myself, but I think that it is also a part of human nature that we tend to get on with the job maore effectively when we know somebody might check up on us. That's why we have foremen and supervisors in factories and building sites.
ReplyDeleteI have no objection at all to local authority officers filling out charts and spreadsheets. I declined to become involved in this with my own local authority, Essex, but I do realise that it is an industry and must, like any other industry, be producing something. In the case of LAs what is produced is usually charts, tables and diagrams.
I have no idea if any LEA inspectors are lurking here. I am inclined to doubt it. I would have thought that the HE-UK and EO lists would be better hunting grounds as you can actually see names and email addresses of contributors there.
Simon, you say,
ReplyDelete"I think most parents who teach their own child, no matter what their approach, probably have some idea of what they hope their child will be able to do in a years time that they cannot do now."
I don't. I have no interest in spending time and effort pretending to do so for the benefit of someone from the LEA. As far as I can see, this would be of no benefit to my children or anyone else.
It's hardly going to slip my mind that we are home educating and that the children need a rich learning environment, sense of achievement and fulfilment, basic skills, etc. I'd be as likely to forget that they need food! /honestly, some silly bit of paper that states that I want them to use paragraphs, is that what all this is really about? What's the point of that? Got to go now as daughter wants me to help her with a book about probability.
I can see Allie, that you are going to be a hard row to hoe for the local authority officers, if and when new laws come in! I did say "most" and not "all" parents. The fact that I find your viewpoint little short of astonishing says more, perhaps, about me than it does about you.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with Allie, even though I write in a little journal about goals for the year, plan out ds' workbooks for the next 2-3 weeks in advance, and use some purchased curriculum. You see, I do this to help *me* with *our* family. I find it easier to relax into home edding with a roadmap for the week ahead, so that if I have an unexpected visitor or someone is sick, I can jump right back in where I left off, or tweak it.
ReplyDeleteBut Allie is Allie. She would go crazy if she did it my way, and I would go nuts with no plan. I have a bad short-term memory for everyday stuff -- Daddy called me The Absent-Minded Professor -- but I knew that Emerson tutored Alcott. I can tell you the derivation of words with no dictionary to hand, but must have a shopping list (in aisle order)or we would all starve to death. For me, my little lists are just fine.
Why can't the type A Simon Webbs/Baadman/Ed Balls types just leave us in peace? Take up an extreme sport or something, and get rid of all that spare energy.
PS I left my typo of Baadman, since it conjures up a vision of a funk star in a spangly codpiece. (Just Google 'Cameo+She's Strange' and all will become gloriously clear to those of you who did not spend your teen years listening to pirate KISS FM.)
"The fact that I find your viewpoint little short of astonishing says more, perhaps, about me than it does about you."
ReplyDeleteAt last you are getting it. Not everyone agrees with you -- what a shocker! You are unable to understand that other intelligent people might, with integrity and insight, come to a differing conclusion. So it's just easier to think of them as stupid, flaky or lazy. Allie seems to be intelligent and hardworking. She just doesn't home ed the way you want her to. And since neither you, nor she, have adult offspring, you cannot declare her way to be less effective than yours. Well, you can, we still have free speech...
Imagine a Badman Review that recommended that plans and goals be outlawed, and that all families be required to educate in an autonomous style. You would object to the presupposition that there should be One Govt Way for all. Or perhaps not? After all, it's an approach that has worked so well in schools (!)
Dear me, you seem to know an awful of about me! Why do think that I am unable to understand that other intelligent people might come to a different conclusion to me? More to the point, why do you assert that I have no adult children? I have and am puzzled as to why you seem so certain that this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubtfor a moment that Allie is hardworking and intelligent. I also think that she is more than capable of handling any criticism which I might make, although it is of course good of you to defend her in this way.
I wouldn't object at all if the Bdaman Report had recommended an autonomous approach. I would have just carried on as I am already doing. This peobably what many autonomous eductors will do anyway. Although I don't think that autonomous education is likely to be as efficient as a structured approach, I am not opposed to it, as many seem to think. I am simply concerned that some people use the term to mask the fact that they are not providing any education at all, autonomous or otherwise. I'm sure that Allie does not fall into that category, although I know little about her.
Ah - I'm glad to read this paragraph of yours Simon. "Although I don't think that autonomous education is likely to be as efficient as a structured approach, I am not opposed to it, as many seem to think. I am simply concerned that some people use the term to mask the fact that they are not providing any education at all, autonomous or otherwise."
ReplyDeleteThat is more reasonable, and makes more sense. HOWEVER, do you have any research or evidence to back up your hunch that some people are not providing any education at all?
Also, would a child who is in a home such as this benefit from going to a local state secondary that is also not providing any sort of decent education?
I am inclined to think that there is more to be learnt from watching TV all day than going to some of the worst state schools in the country of which I have to select from!
I DO LIKE THESE LETTERs BY PETER DONT YOU SIMON?
ReplyDeleteHOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families
Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo MP
Dear Dawn Primarolo MP
Thank you for your letter of 28 August. We did not receive the working paper you attached.
Graham’s Review on Home Education says that a requirement should be placed upon LA’s to secure the monitoring of the effectiveness of home education. If that isn’t a test what is? Effectiveness usually means how well something is working. In your letter you say that there is no question of local authorities insisting that children follow a specific curriculum. The review mentions that the DCSF should review the current definition of a suitable education. This implies changes in the definition of a suitable education so there is a question of following a specific curriculum.
You say that you understand that home educators want privacy and that is guaranteed through article 12 of the human rights act. How can you have privacy when inspectors from the LA force their way into your house? In your letter you say that there were some home educating parents and children who agreed with registration and forced inspections. The vast majority did not want forced visits. Why have you not listened to them? Is it because the minority are saying what you want to hear? I definitely do not want forced inspections in my house or any kind of monitoring.
You say that the review collected evidence from serious case reviews from local authorities about home educated children known to them which provided a basis for the statement, “The number of children known to social services is disproportionately high”. It is very easy to become known to social services. If you complained to social services you would be known to them. Special Needs children may require a piece of equipment and then they would be known to social services. You would also be known if someone made a false allegation about you. Here is the question I want answered how many cases backed by solid evidence were there about home education being used as a cover for abuse. In the consultation document Hampshire LA said there were none.
You say that you agree with the recommendations in the review but the sector about special needs is hugely diverse and needs fresh thinking. But apparently the review will start to be legislated early in the autumn. Implementing the recommendations and then studying them afterwards to make sure they are right doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. It’s a bit like painting every house blue and then saying, “wait a minute the public don’t like the houses new colour we had better put it back to normal.” It would waste a lot of time.
You have also accepted the recommendation in Graham’s review that call for urgent action. It is odd that the recommendations that call for urgent action are the ones home educators disagree with the most.
Finally you have neglected (once again) to answer my question about meeting to discuss this further. Why? I am sure you could help home educators if you understood a little more. I am very concerned about the review.
Yours Sincerely
Peter A Williams
A Home Educated Child.
Gisela, there are several reasons why I think that some parents use the term "Autonomous Education" to conceal the fact that they are not doing anything at all. Part of this is personal experience in boroughs such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets, where the differences between fourteen year old boys who are truanting, have been excluded or are enjoying autonomous education are negligable. The fact that among those withdrawn from school to be educated at home, the numbers peak at the age of fourteen or fifteen, just the age at which many local authorities feel that it is not worth the trouble of forcing the kids back to school; this is another reason. That when I visit homes on housing estates where teeangers are supposedly being home educated, the parents almost invariably claim, "We're autonomous!". Often, I know and so do they that this is a scam. The fact that when children have been de-registered at the instigation of the school or local authority, in order to avoid exclusion or prosecution for truancy, that such families always say that they are adopting an autonomous approach. Talking to officers from a number of LAs, I am almost afraid to mention Tony Mooney and Myra Robinson, suggests to me that the situation is similar in other parts of the country, beyond my own experience.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking persoanlly, I don't care at all if somebody wishes to educate their child autonomously. I don't think that the results are likely to be as good as a more structured approach, but that is probably my prejudice. What I am anxious about is children who have been withddrawn from school with no intention on anybody's part to arrange any sort of an education. I regard that as a scandal and it is those parents who are the target of new laws, not autonomously educating parents per se.
"More to the point, why do you assert that I have no adult children? I have and am puzzled as to why you seem so certain that this is not the case." You are right, I should have stated no adult graduates of home education. One of your children went to school. So you could be attacked by someone questioning the long-term effectiveness of *your* teaching style.
ReplyDelete"I am simply concerned that some people use the term [autonomous]to mask the fact that they are not providing any education at all, autonomous or otherwise." Does the way of thinking still work when applied to you? For example 'X is simply concerned that some people use the term structured home education to mask the fact that they do not know how to provide a varied and personlised education and have no interest in meeting the individual talentss/skills of their children. In fact there might be controlling and abusive practice in that home.' It's clearly unreasonable.
I also want to know about this statement: "... when I visit homes on housing estates where teeangers are supposedly being home educated, the parents almost invariably claim, "We're autonomous!". Often, I know and so do they that this is a scam." What happens when you visit parents in the posher parts of London? Is there something different about (presumably council)housing estates?
You should hesitate to mention Tony Mooney. A Pop Idol panellist is more fit to comment about home education than he, because they would at least be free of his prejudices re council house residents and Romany people.
Well I don't work in the posher parts of London, I work in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. I am writing about what I know. I have not the least doubt that structured home education can be used to mask abusive practices. One remembers children being hothoused and sent to Oxford at fifteen, ultimately ending up on the game. Not a brilliant advertisement for structured home education! Any educational system can be a cover for bad practice and this applies to both autonomous and structured home education. However, autonomous education is easier to use as a cover for lack of education, simply because many people are not familiar enough with the concept to be able readily to distinguish between autonomous education and the type of laisse faire parenting which most of us deplore. This is the danger, not autonomous education in itself.
ReplyDeleteBy the way anonymous, you are very welcome to write stuff for this Blog. If you send me your email address I will put it into the system and you can also be an author. You clearly have many opinions to express.
ReplyDelete"The fact that among those withdrawn from school to be educated at home, the numbers peak at the age of fourteen or fifteen, "
ReplyDeleteHave you any evidence of this? The York study suggests that the number of children registered as home educating increases most between primary and secondary school, so at age 11. I've not seen any figures for the number of children actually withdrawn each year. It stands to reason that the number home educating in each year group will increase if the majority remain home educated. The children listed as home educated at age 14 or 15 will include those withdrawn at 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.
"That when I visit homes on housing estates where teeangers are supposedly being home educated, the parents almost invariably claim, "We're autonomous!". Often, I know and so do they that this is a scam."
How many autonomous home educating families have you visited and how have you judged that they are not providing an education?
"However, autonomous education is easier to use as a cover for lack of education, simply because many people are not familiar enough with the concept to be able readily to distinguish between autonomous education and the type of laisse faire parenting which most of us deplore."
Then the onus should be on them to have better training, not for autonomous home educators to change their approach to make it easier for them.
I have two children under ten, and we are still home educating them. I am not interested in making a name for myself; I am instead trying to persuade you to stop making unfortunate and selfish pronouncements (some in the national press), which help the grey-minded Balls and Badman types in their attempts to stop us from doing what you were free to do for many years. I know that these measures, if passed, would not satisfy those who do not agree with anyone home educating. There would be more to follow.
ReplyDeleteYes, I did use the word "selfish". It applies to comments made without considering the outcome for those of us with younger children. It's a classic example of pulling up the ladder of opportunity behind you, and hindering those following behind. We use a fairly structured approach of the kind you endorse, but our rigour could be attacked by a pen-pusher under the "any other reason" heading in the proposals. For example, our ds is learning to write, and I strongly felt he should go straight to cursive. So he is taking longer to read and write than schooled children, but will only need to learn once. (Baadman would not be down with that, he'd be slammin' us and doggin' us. I am enjoying the funksta thing too much to give it up now.)
I would strongly urge you to reconsider your position. When an autonomous home edder and a "this-ain't-no-democracy-in-this-house" both think you've gone too far it's time to think hard. Allie and I could be hampered by these measures -- although I don't fancy any LEA's chances with us. If you think I'm opinionated, you want to meet dh. A man of far fewer words, but with devastating effect.
Dh on home edding : School will make them stupid. You haven't been to primary schools. You should go and see one. I'm telling you, school will *make* them stupid. [16 yrs working with children]
Dh to midwife on pre-natal screening: Who wants perfect children, anyway? [15yrs working with special needs children]
Dh on special needs: All children have special needs.
A man who says little because he has seen a lot.
Sharon, the figures which I used and from which you may well say I have reached an unjustified conclusion, were those gathered by York Consulting. They found, for instance that only 4% of their sample were Year 2 pupils, but 14% were in Year 10. Most LAs have twice as many children registered as electively home educated at secondary than they have at primary. Clearly, there could be a number of reasons for this, but I have also heard from LA officers that the peak years for de-registratin are 9, 10 and 11.
ReplyDeleteYou ask how I know that some families are not providing an education. This is in the main self reporting by the families themselves. I shall be posting a piece on this very subject tomorrow.
Anonymous with the jive talk, I seriously doubt if this little Blog will have the slightest effect on anybody who is making decisions about new legislation! I am expressing personal opinions and am unlikely to stop simply because you and your husband would disagree. I am quite happy to debate my views; I have no intention at all of keeping quiet because some people don't like them. I am sure that you feel the same. If I told you that I felt that your opinions were harming somebody's children, which as a matter of fact I believe they are, you would hardly say, "Oh, that's right, I had better stop expressing these views. Simon Webb isn't keen on them and says I should keep quiet.". Nor could I reasonably expect you so to do.
ReplyDelete"Sharon, the figures which I used and from which you may well say I have reached an unjustified conclusion, were those gathered by York Consulting."
ReplyDeleteBut the York study found that the largest increase in numbers happened between primary and secondary school and much of the increase between primary and secondary in the study may be accounted for by cultural/philosophical reasons. 3 of the 9 LAs selected for the study included high proportions of children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds (they were selected for this very reason). In one county over half of the known home educating children were from this group. Of the children whose ethnicity was known, 23% of the study population were from this group. These three LAs alone accounted for 79% of the increase in numbers between primary and secondary education. I believe there is a cultural tendency for this group to send children to school for the primary years and then withdraw them from the system during the secondary years (especially girls).
"Most LAs have twice as many children registered as electively home educated at secondary than they have at primary. Clearly, there could be a number of reasons for this"
Well yes, the most obvious being that secondary numbers include those de-registered during primary as well as during the secondary years. You have something like 7 years of de-registrations during primary school, added to the de-registrations that happen during the 5 years of secondary school. Of course numbers will be higher during the secondary years, unless all those withdrawn during the primary years go back to school for secondary.
"but I have also heard from LA officers that the peak years for de-registratin are 9, 10 and 11."
Are these years or ages? I don't really keep track of what age children are in a school year. But the FOI exercise has shown how wrong anecdotal evidence can be. One LA returned a figure for those receiving an unsuitable education to Badman (who asked only for estimated figures) that was something like 45% higher than the accurate figure they were required to produce for a freedom of information request.
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL IS A CRAP COUNIL FOR HOME EDUCATORS AND ENPLOYERS OFFICERS THAT DO NOT TELL THE TRUTH!
ReplyDeleteSimon, I understand your outrage that a child may suffer educational neglect by being forced to home educate because of possible exclusion issues, but how would it be better if that child was in school? Would they be learning anything there? I doubt it. In any case, whether the child is learning nothing at school or learning nothing at home, they're still learning nothing. THAT's the problem that needs a solution. It's irrelevant whether they're registered at a school or not.
ReplyDeleteyes gizzie is right forcing a child to stay at a rubbish school will not solve anything!
ReplyDeleteSo Mr. Badman has noted the serious interest taken in his pseudo-intellectual recommendations and the furious pace of home educators who have brilliantly and effectively dismantled the edifice on which they stand (or totter).
ReplyDeleteHe has had to shout for his pals in the LAs to come and help him as he sinks further into the mire upon which he set out his stall.
If you take a report so poorly written that becomes a platform upon which a government builds changes in the (already perfectly good) law, and in the report you use dodgy statistics, irrational proposals, hopeless illogic, and seek reckless destruction of laws that serve us well by providing a balance between the power of the state (local authorities) and the power of the people (parents), then you can expect to be questioned, have your work eyed up like a stripper's g-string, and thoroughly and roundly criticised.
That we allow a man who is so blatantly and obviously prejudiced to write such damning and completely inane and dangerous drivel is a strike against the heart of this country.
That he has the nerve (I nearly said balls!) to flail about like a drowning weasel to ask for more evidence to back up his insanity is another strike against the living tissue of this land.
That he is allowed more time to receive this help, to regroup his forces of darkness to continue this disgusting and evil power-play against law-abiding, caring parents is a thrust of the dagger down into the very soul of Britain.
So let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes. How many consultations? How many ultra vires LAs? How many happy children who home educate? How many home educators on the review panel?
How much money has been drained out of the coffers for this utter vile travesty? How many children are better off for this DCSF and its spin meisters?
Consultations? Four or five. Others that concern home educators. Too damn many. We actually have lives, you know.
Ultra vires LAs? Dozens? I have been a member of a few lists for four years and can recall agonised parents shouting for help so many times. My own LA representative lied to me about having the right to come into my house (but, cunningly, I had checked with a member of a national home education group so I knew that she had no right). She lied to me. A public servant, whose rations I help to pay for, brass-faced and staring me in the eyes, LIED to me.
Happy home educating children? I don't know an unhappy one, and have never heard of a child who doesn't unfold like a pinched plant leaving the darkness and reviving in the sun as they grow into home education.
Home educators on the review panel? None. Eh? Yes, none. The true experts. The non-school, home educating as I live and breath experts. Representation in Badman's group of bad advisors? Not one.
Tax payers' money? Well, my 88 year old mother probably contributed her share. The bill will add to about £275,000. Of course, this is a guess; informed by Tanya Byron's equally stupid review of computer games. We, who pay for these things, don't know the true total because the DCSF won't tell us. Telling us how much we've coughed up is a form of harassing and vilifying Badman apparently.
How many children are better off? None. In fact, they are worse off. Quite a few concerned mothers have told me that their children are terrified to see officials alone, don't want to be showing their work, don't want to perform for schooly agents like performing fleas, and are scared of the Badman.
They've cried themselves to sleep.
Cried. Children. Shed tears.
Some of them are petrified that they will be forced - frog-marched - back to school from which safe and glorious hell hole they had previously been removed because they were in danger.
Safeguarding?
Yeah, right.
Pull the other one.
So, you're against the Badman Report, is that right?
ReplyDeleteActually Sharon, the statistics in the York Consulting report are a little more complex than you suggest. Looking at Figure 3.13, which is a bar chart, the numbers for each school year do not follow a smooth upwards curve, which is what one would expect if the totals increased regularly year on year. Instead, we find that the number home educating in Year 2 is lower than the number for Year 1. then the numbers rise in Years 3 and 4, only to drop for Years 5 and 6. A big jump for secondary and then peak years for 9, 10 and 11. The problem is of course that we do not know what years children were de-registered. that is why I find that the spike around Years 9, 10 and 11 is indicative of the prevalnece of children withdrawn at that age. The data seem to support me there, but you could also be right. As usual, the data are incomplete and we cannot be sure.
ReplyDeleteGisela, you raise a very good point. If the child will not be learning whether at school or home, what is the point of forcing him back to school? I suppose that I would be inclined to think that most teenagers are safer at school than they would be hanging round the streets during the day. Also less of a nuisance to the rest of the population. This is a negative view though. I would like to see provision made for les academic children who cannot stick school. maybe an extension of the system which allows them to attend college at fourteen to do voactional courses. What I do not think a good idea is simply to leave them alone and, in effect, write them off.
ReplyDelete"Actually Sharon, the statistics in the York Consulting report are a little more complex than you suggest. Looking at Figure 3.13, which is a bar chart, the numbers for each school year do not follow a smooth upwards curve, which is what one would expect if the totals increased regularly year on year."
ReplyDeleteI've not claimed that there is a smooth increase from year to year and pointed out the largest jump in numbers that occurs between primary and secondary school in the York study myself. I merely suggested that a year on year increase could be a contributory factor when LAs report higher HE numbers in the secondary years.
"The problem is of course that we do not know what years children were de-registered. that is why I find that the spike around Years 9, 10 and 11 is indicative of the prevalnece of children withdrawn at that age"
You describe a peak for the years 9, 10 and 11 yet really it's more of a levelling off after increases in previous years. You claimed originally that these were the peak years for de-registrations. Wouldn't you expect to see numbers increasing in between these years rather than levelling off and even dropping in year 11?
An increase in numbers between one year and the next might suggest an increase in de-registrations. Here are the year on year increases or falls in the numbers of home educating children in the York study from reception right through to year 11.
R-1 = 28
1-2 = -8
2-3 = 8
3-4 =11
4-5 = -3
5-6 = -1
6-7 = 32
7-8 = 29
8-9 = 5
9-10 = 1
10-11 = -1
An initial increase in numbers (spike) of 28 is seen between reception and year 1, a minor spike of 11 is seen between year 3-4, and the major spike of 61 happens between years 6 and 8. Outside of these increases, the levels remained fairly constant. Overall the numbers increase from 16 in reception year to 116 children in year 11, a total of 844 children (where year groups are known).
Of course, the increased numbers could reflect previously unknown home educators being discovered rather than de-registrations. Another possibility is that the numbers could be held stable between years 8 and 11 by a balance of previously home educated children being returned to school and an increase in de-registrations at the same time. But the figures on their own in no way support the theory that there is an increase in de-registrations between years 8 and 11. They do support the theory that the high numbers seen de-registering at the beginning of secondary age may have more to do with the cultural practices of an over represented minority in the study population. An intentional skewing of the study population because they purposely selected 3 of the 9 LAs because of their high proportions of children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller backgrounds.
We are evidently looking at the same graph and perhaps bringing our own preconceptions to it in order to make sense of it. We need to know more about the figures before we can say anything with assurance. We are both in the dark about how many of those children came to light because they were "discovered" by the local authorities after home educating for a while, as opposed to those who de-registered from schools. Nor do we know at what age the children were de-registered, nor how many went back to school. I have tried fooling around with some figures and trying out some scenarios, but none of them yield the distribution in the bar chart which we are given. I have brought to the problem of course my own opinions, based upon other knowledge and that inclines me to interpret the figures in a certain way. You are quite right about the Roma of course and I am sure that this does skew the thing.
ReplyDeleteSimon, taking our example of the child learning nothing at school or at home, assuming s/he exists, I disagree that it's safer to put the child in school. Not necessarily for themselves, although I could go down that route, but for the other children in the school. It's not fair that a handful of disruptive pupils disturb a whole class of children because they don't know how to behave in a group and are too old for a NQT fresh from uni to have a hope of managing.
ReplyDeleteIt's also not safer to the self esteem of the child in question to continue, day after day, to feel stupid and unable to succeed which is what happens at that age after a decade of failure.
Unfortunately, the system failed them from the start. What they need at that age is a completely new approach, out of the school. There are some very good things being done by Civitas and boxing academies that are proving to be very successful with this group of children we are talking about.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/education/LBACP.php
But this is a small subset. Most autonomous families I know are young families with a few small children, and their children really are learning to read, count, write, play music and many other things, all by themselves.
It appears to be, given the intellect and wonderful personalities of the children I know, so successful, that I'd love to be able to be autonomous myself, but my personality really doesn't lend itself to it.
I agree with you that it can be damaging for other children to be stuck with a disaffected youth in their class. I think that some provision needs to be made for such individuals.
ReplyDeleteObviously, you tend to meet parents who are genuinely home educating and so you probably get into the way of assuming that everybody who takes their kid out of school does so for good reasons. I have no idea at all what the figures are for those who are committed to their children's education as opposed to those who have basically de-registered their children to avoid problems.
You asked in an earlier post Gisela, whether I thought that only those who chose to educate their children from the beginning should be allowed to do so and if I was prejudiced against those, like you, who have withdrawn them from school. I cannot help but think that there will be some sort of difference between those who have willingly chosen a course of action and those who feel that they have been forced into it by circumstance. In other words, if somebody does somthing because they really want to do it and they think it will be fun, they will surely have a different mindset from someone who has no choice in the matter and feels thst he has to do this thing. That is all that I mean when I talk about the difference between those who teach their children from the start and those who withdraw them after initially sending them to school.
"I have no idea at all what the figures are for those who are committed to their children's education as opposed to those who have basically de-registered their children to avoid problems."
ReplyDeleteI think the is the crux of the issue, nobody knows accurate figures yet some are assuming there is a large problem that needs a large solution (Badman, etc.) and others believe the opposite. It's obvious that they need more information before they can make informed decisions (if they must do something). The ContactPoint database (or a simple requirement to register once, without the LA having the authority to refuse registration, if ContactPoint is cancelled), along with existing laws should be sufficient to provide enough information to base future decisions on (and in my view they should be sufficient to deal with any problems too).
"I cannot help but think that there will be some sort of difference between those who have willingly chosen a course of action and those who feel that they have been forced into it by circumstance. In other words, if somebody does somthing because they really want to do it and they think it will be fun, they will surely have a different mindset from someone who has no choice in the matter and feels thst he has to do this thing."
I think this difference probably exists at the beginning of the home education journey, but I know from talking to many home educators that the difference often disappears over time as those who begin home education for negative reasons see how well it suits them and their children. As you've noticed yourself, these home educators can come to value home education even more highly because for many it has saved their child as well as resulted in a much happier lifestyle.
Obviously it will not suit everyone and some may continue to feel quite negative about their situation, possibly still hoping to find a suitable school place eventually. Maybe these are the families that return their child to school within the first year or so? Dr Arora's research in Kirklees found that out of the 65 families registered, 41 returned their children to school soon after withdrawal. I don't know if this is typical or a sign that support was particularly poor in that area at that time. Her research seems very different from other home education research, possibly because all of the families were those known to the LA.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/39/53/EdKirkrep.doc
"In other words, if somebody does something because they really want to do it and they think it will be fun, they will surely have a different mindset from someone who has no choice in the matter and feels that he has to do this thing."
ReplyDeleteBut you could argue the exact opposite really..take me for example - originally withdrew just one daughter in year 3 because of unmet special needs. So - motivation - to improve dd's academic and social "performance" - therefore HE is really "serious" task..lots of hard work to raise attainment above that which would have been expected if she had continued in school. So I could say that I may have not chosen it to begin with, but it has been a more arduous task that that of someone perhaps raising a more neurotypical child, both time wise (we never got away with only doing an hour a day, or leaving dd unsupervised to work on her own - both of which are often claimed as the way other home educators experience home education.)
So it is impossible to draw generalised conclusions - harping on again about my local group experience, but it is a big group (124 families at present) and I have been there a long time... a quick study would show that all the parents who withdrew their children from school for special needs, bullying, religious reasons would score more highly in the "committed to home ed, serious hands on teaching, more structured etc" areas that would tick Simon's criteria of "proper home educators" than the "home ed by choice" group who are more often committed to AE/non coercive parenting and who might rattle Simon's cage more!
I am not saying that either group represents the "only true home educators" just that origins don't always reflect commitment to the cause.
Well I think that is a good point Julie. I suppose that you might say that the parent who has withdrawn the child because of bullying or special needs provision being inadequate might well be more fiercely committed to their child's education than a dilettante like me, for whom the whole thing is essentially an intellectual exercise. Yes, I quite see that!
ReplyDelete