Both legally and as a matter of common practice, we all of us set limits upon our children's freedom of choice. Few of us would countenance our twelve year old daughter embarking upon a sexual relationship with a man of thirty. Similarly, we feel that we should have the right to make decisions on behalf of our children as regards medical treatment. Most of us also decide their bedtime, supervise their diet and choose their clothes. Strangely though, when it comes to education there are those who would give their children unfettered choice over what they learn and how it is learned. These are the parents who espouse the doctrine of autonomous education.
I have wrestled with this strange concept for some years and confess myself no closer to understanding the underlying rationale than I was when first I encountered the notion. Let us take it step by step and see where I may be going wrong. If my eight year old daughter were ill and needed some painful and invasive procedure in order to recover her health, I would consent to it on her behalf. Perhaps left to herself she would decline this treatment, because being a child she would not understand the implications of her refusal. In short, she would be incapable of making an informed decision; I would make it for her. I think most parents would do the same. In precisely the same way, if I had a child who refused to eat anything but sugar and also would not clean his teeth, I would feel that I had a problem. Because I would, as an adult, be better able to see the long term consequences of my son's actions, I would be an irresponsible parent if I failed to act. in other words, I would prevent him from living on sugar and make sure that he cleaned his teeth, no matter what his own inclinations in the matter were. This is because as a child he would not be able to foresee the long term and unpleasant results of eating nothing but sugar and not cleaning his teeth afterwards. Responsibility would devolve naturally upon his parents to remedy the situation.
So far, so good. I believe that most parents would probably go along with me up to this point. Where some would differ would be when I move from physical to spiritual and mental health. Just as we have a duty to care for our children's physical health, so also must we guard their mental development. If our child wished to do nothing but watch cartoons and DVDs all day long and showed no interest in any other activity, it would be our duty to try and open out their interests and, if necessary, forbid them to spend all their time in front of the television.
Just as we are able to foresee the ill effects of certain physical actions in our child's routine, such as eating nothing but sugar, so too can we look into the future and see what might happen if their minds are not stimulated and stretched. We can also have a shrewd guess as to what their lives will be like if they remain illiterate as adults or if they are unable to work out the change from a £10 note when out shopping. We can also foretell that if they do not have a grounding in history and geography, then much of the news will be meaningless to them. If they do not learn about the generation of electricity and the nature of a gene, then they will be unable to understand the debate over nuclear energy or genetic engineering. In effect, if we neglect to make arrangements for them to learn these things, then we are really choosing for them; making a decision on their behalf that they will grow into ignorant and ill informed adults, unable to function as full citizens in today's society.
Of course some children may choose to research nuclear energy for themselves, just as others may want to find out what a gene is. Others will of course choose not to do so, but instead lay in bed all day or spend their time endlessly playing computer games. Giving young children choices like this, choices that will have such far-reaching and possibly irrevocable consequences is not really fair on them. As adults, we are much better placed to decide what a child needs in order to grow into a healthy and well rounded person. Most of us choose healthy food for them, so too should we be providing healthy fare for their minds. More, we should be planning in advance what they may need to know in the future. This, of course, is why we should have at least a provisional plan for their education and learning, rather than depending upon chance and the vagaries of a growing child's mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I have no qualms about admitting that I am a structured home educator who did direct my daughter's education, although of course I took into account her strengths and weaknesses but she had to persevere at what she didn't enjoy, even though she did get some free choice in areas which I considered less essential. However I do wonder whether in fact society has moved so much in the direction of personal freedom that even some of your non educational examples no longer hold true. When we spent a long time in a paediatric cardiac ward with a foster child, there was an 8 year old there who had a life threatening heart condition and who needed life saving surgery after a cardiac arrest at school.... but he had a melt down in the anaethetic room and they wouldn't go ahead until HE consented..... which he did after a week or so and a couple of other abortive attempts. Similarly the consent form my 13 year old had for HPV vaccine stated that if "we" refused and my daughter wanted it, they would vaccinate her - but then if she played truant we of course would be the ones facing prosecution.....So what I am saying is that the rest of society have become very inconsistent with the whole issue of "childrens rights" anyway...so no wonder home educators can't agree.
ReplyDeleteYes, the whole situation is a mess in this area. I made a subject access request to Essex LEA in order to find out what information they held on my then thirteen year old daughter and they tried to calim that her permission was needed. As you say, if she were truanting from school then it would become my choice and my prosecution!
ReplyDelete"I have wrestled with this strange concept for some years and confess myself no closer to understanding the underlying rationale than I was when first I encountered the notion."
ReplyDeleteOh, bless :) Well it's a bit too late for you to work it out now, isn't it? Perhaps it can only really be understood by those who enjoy a close and sympathetic bond with their children.
Hey, I've got an idea! If you are not articulate or bright enough to discuss something intelligently, why not try slagging off the person who is expressing an opinion? You could do this by bringing his child into the debate and making sly innuendos about his relationship with her. That's got to be better than having a proper discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that I've seen so many people try to explain this to you in many different ways and you just tend to ignore or overlook their efforts, so I didn't want the waste of time and energy, myself. I've also noticed that you're not above slagging people off yourself, and completely ignoring intelligently made points that disagree with your own. Is that an indication of how articulate and bright you are too, then?
ReplyDeleteTell me, do you actually have anything to say about the limits of choice for children under the age of sixteen, or do you wish to trade playground insults? Either is quite acceptable to me, but I need to know which you prefer before I respond.
ReplyDeleteSame old, same old.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised that the previous anonymous has lost patience with you. It doesn't matter how many times the concepts of autonomous learning and intrinsic motivation are painstakingly explained to you, you keep on trotting out the same ignorant and prejudiced tosh.
Has it occurred to you that you are shooting yourself in the foot? You are not interested in learning about autonomous education, therefore you don't. QED.
On the contrary, I was so interested in learning about autonomous education that I spent years researching it. I then spent another couple of years on various message boards, trying to get people to explain the particular difficulties I was having. This seemed to enrage people.
ReplyDeleteBy the by, I have never been a great fan of the writers of anonymous letters, or poison pen letters as we called them when I was young. I can't help but notice that the people who say the most spiteful things about me and my family are always anonymous. The person above who hints at the relationship I have with my daughter is a classic example of the breed.
It is true that I have views which not everybody agrees with, but I am never ashamed to put my name to them. I wonder if some of the anonymous posters above might consider taking the same bold step? It is otherwise difficult to know to whom I should address my answer. Unless you are really too timid to reveal your idenities, in which case you could perhaps start signing yourselves Anonymous 1. and Anonymous 2. and so on.
"On the contrary, I was so interested in learning about autonomous education that I spent years researching it. I then spent another couple of years on various message boards, trying to get people to explain the particular difficulties I was having. This seemed to enrage people."
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised. Your misunderstanding of AE is so profound and so entrenched as to seem deliberately provocative. You appear to have undertaken your years of research with the intention of confirming your prejudices. You are not interested in learning what AE really is and how it really works, therefore you haven't. QED.
Something else which I have always managed fairly easily when discussing home education is to avoid being rude to people by describing them as ignorant and prejudiced. I still didn't catch your name?
ReplyDeleteI am amazed when people come on here to post, saying something like, "Simon Webb is a liar" or indeed "You are ignorant and prejudiced." They then hastily finish by saying "But I can't waste time on you." If you feel that I am ignorant, prejudiced and have a poor relationship with my daughter, why not simply leave it at that? You clearly have no desire to contribute anything useful to this thread, which was about the limts of choice for children.
Quick repeat of a previous post and a few extra comments:
ReplyDelete"As far as being morally opposed to coercion goes, does that apply to every aspect of your child's life? Would you not compel him to clean his teeth? Would you allow him to live on nothing but sugar or if you found hime torturing a kitten would you not use coercion to stop him? If he refused to wear clothes or sleep in a bed, would that justify your coercion? To what extent is your moral opposition limited, if at all, to education?"
The only place I would draw a line there would be the torturing of a kitten, but I doubt this is an issue very often. All of my children have displayed the opposite behaviour and tend to take in and care for injured animals. I think you would have to be mentally ill or disturbed in some way to torture animals. Non-coercion does not mean that you don't discuss pros and cons of various issues with your children. They have variously gone through phases of not brushing teeth, spending lots of time without their clothes on and one of my children prefers sleeping on the sofa ATM, why is this a problem? Of course problems crop up where we struggle to find a solution that everyone is happy with and I doubt anyone is a perfectly non-coercive parent, but it's something we aim for and it has become easier over time.
Medical treatments: none coercive, including life threatening conditions and their (painful) treatments.
Dental treatments: free choice - all have accepted when it seemed appropriate and necessary to them.
Teeth brushing: none coercive, discuss what happens if you don't brush, they have all avoided brushing for periods but all brush regularly now.
Bedtimes: their choice
Meals: their choice - we discuss healthy diets and they generally eat healthy most of the time.
Education: all have learnt about money from an early age by their own choice, because they wanted to be sure the shopkeeper wasn't cheating them and to work out how much they could buy or how much more they needed to save for something they wanted. Can't imagine a normal child not wanting to learn about money. Same applies for everything they need to know to live in our society.
I can see that we will have to agree to have a different view about a child's ability to make informed decisions about dental treatment. You say that you cannot imagine a child not wanting to know about money and everything they need to know to live in our society. I can not only imagine such children, I have met many of them. Not, I have to say, in general the children of people like you Sharon, but the type is common enough. In order to discuss this further, we would also need to agree upon what it is necessary for an adult to know to live a full life in our society. For instance, I think that the generation of electricity is very important. Otherwise one would be unable to consider the rival merits of nuclear power and windmills. Also, I would suggest, a large amount of history and geography. The daily news would be all but incomprehensible without this. I know many young people who lack this sort of knowledge. I have to say that they are almost invariably children who have been to school. They are unable to hold a conversation about the Lisbon Treaty, renewable energy, the war in Afghanistan, the staet of th economy or practically anything else. I am surprised that you never encounter these youths; perhaps we move in different circles?
ReplyDeleteI do not think that school is a particularly good way of imparting this basic knowledge, but for those of us who educated our own children, the case is very different.
"You say that you cannot imagine a child not wanting to know about money and everythink they need to know to live in our society. I can not only imagine such children, I have met many of them. Not, I have to say, in general the children of people like you Sharon"
ReplyDeleteSharon is one of the parents who espouse the doctrine of autonomous education. What can you mean?
I know and have met disadvantaged children, they all know about money! Probably not much about most of the subjects you mention in your last reply, but I suspect my knowledge is severely lacking in some of these areas too. I still manage to run a business, bring up children, gain degree level qualifications, fill out forms, travel around the world, etc.
ReplyDeleteWell Anonymous, Sharon is indeed an autonomously educating parent. She is also somebody who is very concerned for her children's welfare and probably nurtures opportunities for learning at every touch and turn. Not all children have parents like that; the fact that she educated autonomously is irrelevant. It might help if you started to insert words into statements when you are considering these matters. For instance words like sometimes, never, always, some, all. Only a complete madman would claim that all autonomously educated children grow up to be ignorant and ill informed. In just the same way nobdy in his senses would ate that all children educated in a structured way are thoughtful and well informed. We are talking about probabilities, what will be likely to give the best results.
ReplyDelete"We are talking about probabilities, what will be likely to give the best results."
ReplyDeleteOh sorry. I thought we were talking about the limits of choice for children. From what Sharon was saying, she offers her children a very wide range of informed choices, including the choice of not cleaning their teeth, which makes her, in your own words, an irresponsible parent.
"We are talking about probabilities, what will be likely to give the best results."
ReplyDeleteAt the heart of autonomous education is the theory that children learn more easily, in greater depth and with greater understanding if they have a genuine interest in what they are learning about and have freely chosen to learn it. If you agree with this theory then autonomous education would appear to be the best approach. If you disagree with this theory, then an externally provided curriculum would appear to be ideal. Another aspect of autonomous education is the belief that children will naturally want to learn things that are necessary for life in our society. For example, some of my children learnt to read when they were about 13. They wanted to learn for specific reasons, to achieve specific aims. Before that point they saw no need to read, did not gain pleasure from reading for themselves but, unlike children in school, were not disadvantaged academically because they could not read. I've no idea how successful this approach is for others but it has worked fine for my children, the children seen by Alan Thomas (200+ children) and the unschoolers included in the recent American study. If Badman wants to carry out further research to check on success rates in the UK, he must first appreciate that this will only be possible if his recommendations are not followed!
Simon, why do you think it necessary to work out what will be likely to give the best results for all children? Surely one of the many advantages of home education is that families can work out what suits them and their children?
ReplyDeleteWhen one is talking about a tiny number of individuals home educating, then it is reasonable to assume that they are dedicated to their children's welfare and are determined to do the very best for their children. Some might allow their children to learn autonomously, perhaps others will have a very structured approach. Both styles have disadvantages. The very structured, controlling parent can produce a neurotic, dysfunctional child; the autonomous educator might end up with an ingnorant and ill informed one. On the other hand, both methods may well have good results.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as an educational system which will give good results for all children. the best we can hope to do is come up with methods which are more likely to work with a large number of children than some other theories. So far, there is a great deal of evidence that conventional educational methods work reasonably well when applied to a large group of children. The evidence for the long term results for autonomous education are not as extensive. It is simply a question of statistics. I am well aware that some children will suffer ill effects from structured academic work and that others will thrive under autonomous learning. When, as in this case, we are talking about something over fifty thousand children, the gamble seems to me to be too great.
I have no doubt that some children will learn enough by themselves to become informed and educated citizens. Others will not. This is a personal view which is also backed by the available evidence. I do not think that children are the best judges of what they are likely to need to know in later life and I feel that we should guide them in this.
Simon, you say,
ReplyDelete"I do not think that children are the best judges of what they are likely to need to know in later life and I feel that we should guide them in this."
I don't know what my children will need to know in later life. I don't know what the world will be like when they are adults. I don't know what they will want to do with their lives. What I do know is that they will need to be confident, active learners. I believe that autonomous home education is helping them grow and develop as such learners.
I still fail to see why you feel the need to 'take on' autonomous education/educators in the way you do. I think we all know that you remain unconvinced by the theory and highly sceptical about the practice. But, you know, people believe lots of things that I think are nonsense and do lots of things I think are unwise. I don't think the government needs to legislate to 'correct' them. Surely it is a sign of a healthy democracy for people to make unorthodox choices? It is vital. The law is there to protect children should their parents make choices that are going to place them at risk of significant harm.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"There is no such thing as an educational system which will give good results for all children. the best we can hope to do is come up with methods which are more likely to work with a large number of children than some other theories."
Or allow those best placed to do so, the family and the child themselves, to work out what method is best for each child. Why do home educators need to come up with methods which are more likely to work with a large number of children when we are only concerned with our own children's education?
"So far, there is a great deal of evidence that conventional educational methods work reasonably well when applied to a large group of children. The evidence for the long term results for autonomous education are not as extensive."
Autonomous education is probably a little more difficult in large groups, but it's not impossible. Have you looked at free schools like Sudbury and Summerhill, they've been around for a few years now, Sudbury Valley School was founded in 1968 and Summerhill in 1921. But again, why should we be concerned with large groups?
I have no doubt that some children will learn enough through a structured, curriculum approach to become informed and educated citizens. Others will not. This is a personal view which is also backed by the available evidence.
What evidence do you have that the same is true for autonomously educated children (not children who learn by themselves as this is not necessarily autonomous education)?
Allie, I have never thought of myself as "taking on" autonomous educators, as you put it. I have expressed my views on the subject in newspaper articles and now on this Blog. Since people come on here to tell me what they think, I could with equal justice accuse autonomous educators of "taking on" me!
ReplyDeleteI am of course quite happy for people to believe things which I don't. I go to church every week and I am perfectly well aware that to many that is superstitious nonsense. I like the fact that in this country people can generally behave as they like. My problem is that where children are concerned, they do not have much choice but to do along with their parents cranky lifestyles. My own daughter was educated at home and it would be wrong to suggest that she had a choice about it. I made the decision and she grew up into that sort of household and rather had to put up with it. True, she was given the opportunity of attending school later if she wanted to, but by the time she was old enough to express her own opinion, she had in effect been subtly indoctrinated with my view of education. This can be dangerous.
You say that the law is there to protect children at risk of serious harm and this is true. however there are a lot of grey areas before you reach the "serious harm" bit. Suppose I follow a macrobiotic diet and impose it on my daughter. It may not cause her harm, but on the other hand it might. Should the law involve itself? A child in the USA actually developed the deficiency disease Beri Beri in those circumstances, so it is not a silly example. What if I run my home like a Trappist monastery, with nobody speaking other than the occasional word? Would that kind of set-up harm a growing child's language development? Should the law act in such a case? I think that very few home educated children are at risk of serious harm, but there are other considerations where I think that society has a right to keep a closer eye on what is happening in the home. I think that education is one of those things.
Sharon, you ask why we should be concerned with large groups in the matter of the educational style we choose for our children. All educational methods will produce success and failure. A child left entirely to his own devices might well educate himself and become an architect or artist. Similarly, a child sent to the best school in the land might fail miserably in an academic sense and go on to become a drop-out and drug addict.
ReplyDeleteI do not think, nor does the evidence suggest, that all educational systems produce the same proportion of success and failure. In other words, some are better than others. We only need look at some discredited scheme such as the Initial Teaching Alphabet to see that this is so. Imagine now that you are choosing how to provide your child with a decent education. The first system you examine has been looked at extensively. Out of a thousand children taught that way, ten children have gone on to fine careers, the other nine hundred and nintey five are on social security benefits. When you look at the second method, you find that the proportions are reversed, only five of these children are on the dole as adults. I think there would be little doubt about which of those two schemes you would choose. This is why I say that it is important to look at large numbers, in order that we might judge the efficacy of any proposed system.
I do not say that the difference between autonomous education and conventional teaching is anything like as clearly marked. However, there has been a huge amount of research on the various ways of teaching children in a structured, school like setting and relatively little done on autonomous education. When I say relatively little, Sharon, I mean a few thousand children have been looked at closely, rather than the many millions whom we know about from school results and the long term follow ups of children who have been taught in this way.
It is plain that teaching children in a structured way is effective and produces a lot of good results. It is not so obvious with autonomous education, because we have not seen enough of it yet to be sure. It may be a strange experiment just like the Initial Teaching Alphabet, which will prove to have done more harm than good for many children. I did not wish to take this gamble and until the evidence is a good deal stronger, I think that others should think twice. Yes, by the way, I am quite familiar with Summerhill and do not regard it as a recommendation for this system!
"A child left entirely to his own devices might well educate himself and become an architect or artist."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep bringing up this hypothetical child who is left entirely to their own devices? That's not education, that's neglect. Current laws allow for an SAO in that situation. There seems little point in engaging with anything else you say if these are the children you are talking about because you are not talking about home education, autonomous or otherwise.
"I did not wish to take this gamble and until the evidence is a good deal stronger, I think that others should think twice. "
It has never felt like a gamble, I have seen how effective it is on a daily basis, and if it can work for a few thousand children as you say, why will it not work for others? At the very least the research is strong enough to say that autonomous education is not abusive, so why should it be ended? School education is known to be abusive to many but that is allowed to continue. There is certainly no evidence that autonomous education is worse than school education, and as this is generally acceptable to the government, there can be no justification to end autonomous education.
There is a similar amount of evidence for your structured approach as there is autonomous education. You cannot use the evidence provided by schools as this is provided by trained teachers and is not comparable to unqualified parents teaching their children at home. Do you think all home education should be ended because only a few thousand have been studied?
I use the child left entirely to his own devices not as an example of a typical autonomously educated child, but as the antithesis of the child who has been schooled rigorously and never left to his own devices. They are both intellectual constructs, archetypes if you will, to make our debates more clear. I do not mean to suggest that such children are common, nor even that a single one exists today. There have actually been children in the past though, who were more or less left alone, with access to libraries and so on, who did manage to educate themselves. I am thinking now of children from aristocratic homes in the 18th and early 19th Centuries, rather than modern day home educated children.
ReplyDeleteI cannot imagine why you should ask whether I think that all home education should be ended. I am a fervent and most devoted believer in home education and have fought for the idea tooth and nail for years. I don't think that autonomous education is abusive, nor do I think that it should be ended. I did not say that it has worked for thousands of children, I said that research on home educated children amounted to a few thousand rather than the millions who have been examined under more conventional systems. There are successful outcomes with autonomous education and there are successful outcomes for conventional education, whether at school or in the home. There can be abuse in both types of setting. I do not believe that autonomous education per se results in more abuse. I think that misunderstood and misapplied, it can lead to the neglect of a child's education. As I say, the evidence is not strong for its use as a system of mass education. This may change over time and it may prove to be a worthwhile system generally. This has not happened yet. The fact that I educated my child in a very structured way and the results were good, tells us nothing at all. The fact that you educated your children autonomously and the results were good, similarly tells us nothing. We need to see the long term outcomes for a hundred thousand or so, right up to later life. We have these data for children who have been educated in various school settings; for instance independent versus maintained, selective versus comprehensive, small classes versus large classes. We do not have the same amount of information about autonomously educated children and it is therefore a bit of a gamble.
"I don't think that autonomous education is abusive, nor do I think that it should be ended."
ReplyDeleteIf you agree with the Badman recommendations you also agree that autonomous education should be ended because that will be the effect. You deny this but I know from experience of visits and of autonomous education that this will be the case.
"As I say, the evidence is not strong for its use as a system of mass education. This may change over time and it may prove to be a worthwhile system generally."
Why did you even bring up mass education? Mass education has nothing to do with home education or the limits of choice a parent places on their child. It's clear that mass education usually limits choice by its very nature, but we are discussing choice in the family, aren't we?
"We do not have the same amount of information about autonomously educated children and it is therefore a bit of a gamble."
I still cannot see your point. Why are you specifying autonomous education in the comment and not home education? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, 'We do not have the same amount of information about home educated children and it is therefore a bit of a gamble'? If not, why not?
"There can be abuse in both types of setting. I do not believe that autonomous education per se results in more abuse. I think that misunderstood and misapplied, it can lead to the neglect of a child's education."
It is also true that a structured approach can be misunderstood and misapplied and result in the neglect of a child's education. Why do you think this is more true for autonomous education? For me, the most important thing a child can learn is how to learn and it's entirely possible for this ability to be neglected and stunted if a curriculum is spoon fed to a child in a structured way.
In my experience, autonomous education is an excellent approach from this point of view. My child gained a distinction star on the course they did last year, the only one out of a class of 25. The difference, according to the lecturer, was the ability to research and work independently and gain a thorough and deep understanding of the subject matter as a result. In my observation this has been possible for my child because they have followed this approach their whole lives. Being able to choose what they learn makes research skills essential.
One of my children knows far more than I will ever know about reptiles, animals and nature generally. We've been out on herping trips (searching for reptiles) and I have asked various questions about the reptiles and other animals we have seen and the questions have been answered. I didn't question them to test their knowledge but to learn from them. I've been able to verify much of the information whilst listening in on their conversations with knowledgeable adults and on programmes such as Autumn Watch.
It's impossible for anyone to foresee what facts a child will need to know when they are grown. As a minor example, I have been autonomously educating myself on the new Inland Revenue rules for capital allowances and the Annual Investment Allowance. Obviously this could not have been included in a school curriculum for me because it didn't exist then (though nothing similar was taught either), but knowledge of it is far more important than any of the subjects you mentioned above when it comes to managing my life in a modern society. Again, the ability to research quickly and effectively has been more important to me that the specific 'facts' included in the curriculum I was taught. Research was not taught at our school (maybe the NC is better in this respect) so I have had to teach myself these skills as an adult. My children have grown up using them as part of their daily life.
Any disagreement about use of the phrase "mass education" is a matter of semantics. I meant only that it is being used by tens of thousands in this country, rather than half a dozen.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems with properly evaluating autonomous education is that even autonomous educators can use this expression to mean quite different things. This makes it hard to know if one is comparing like with like when looking at outcomes. For instance if I am talking with teachers about the difference between Initial Teaching Alphabet and synthetic phonics, then we all know precisely what we mean by the terms. We can unearth data which tells us how these methods worked upon cohorts of ten thousand or so. How very different is the case with autonomous education. As an example, let us compare two home educators, both of whom are adamant that their children learnt to read autonomously. These are based upon actual parents. The first is a follower of Rudolf Steiner. She actively discouraged her daughter from reading until her permanent teeth had emerged. To this end, she allowed no books in her daughter's bedroom and refused to take her to a library. Not surprisingly, her daughter was somewhat late in learning to read! The other parent, while not teaching in the strictest sense of the word, made every effort to encourage her son to read. Labels on household objects like tables and chairs, simplified material left laying round the house, regular reading sessions, getting the kid to guess the next word and so on. This child, again not surprisingly, was an early reader. Yet both parents described themselves as being autonomous. This is the difficulty, even when one finds that a child has learnt to read "autonomously", one does not really know what the expression means.
As for the recommendations of the Badman Report making autonomous education impossible, all that is being asked is that parents have an idea what they hope their child will achieve. You Sharon, clearly hoped that your children would learn about money and acquire literacy at some stage. I cannot see how writing those hopes down could have prevented your children learning autonomously. In the one case, it is being asked that parents will write down what they hope their children might learn in a year. Obviously this will change over the year and perhaps quite different things will be learnt, things that were not mentioned in the original plan. There is no suggestion that parents will be penalised for this or that their children will be forced to go to school if they don't learn what their parents said they would. Unless I'm missing something here, the only recommendations which refer to registration as a home educator being refused or revoked are numbers 23 and 24, both of which refer specifically to safeguarding concerns rather than education. Has anybody else come across something which makes it look as though the plan is to revoke registration if the child isn't learning according to some artificial timescale?
By the way Sharon, why you won't sign up as an author on this Blog is a complete mystery to me! I really think that it would be refreshing for people to read a few posts by somebody other than me and occasionally Gisela.
ReplyDelete"The first is a follower of Rudolf Steiner. She actively discouraged her daughter from reading until her permanent teeth had emerged. To this end, she allowed no books in her daughter's bedroom and refused to take her to a library. The other parent, while not teaching in the strictest sense of the word, made every effort to encourage her son to read. Labels on household objects like tables and chairs, simplified material left laying round the house, regular reading sessions, getting the kid to guess the next word and so on. This child, again not surprisingly, was an early reader.
ReplyDeleteI agree the term autonomous education can be misused, often people mean informal learning I think. The definition of Autonomous Education is in the name. Autonomous means self directed; the child chooses what they want to learn and their parent facilitates. "Autonomous learning is not focussed on the content or style of learning, but on the primacy of intrinsic motivation. (It is not what is learnt or how it is learnt, but whether the learner directed the learning)" (Jan FW). Obviously parents of younger children inevitably influence what is available to their child, but as they grow older and meet more people, watch TV, visit places of interest, etc., they soon find out what's available out there for themselves!
It's difficult to tell for sure from these descriptions if either of your examples are autonomously educating. If the first parent refused a request to go the library, this would not be autonomous education. A Steiner education is not autonomous, they make educational decisions on behalf of the child. Unless the child chose to follow Steiner it seems highly unlikely that they are autonomous educators. If the child in the second example had to be persuaded to take part in the activities or did not have the choice not to take part, this would again not be autonomous education. But if the child had a free choice of activities they may be educating autonomously. Offering activities and ideas you think might interest your child is part of facilitating autonomous education. I know my child is interested in nature so I suggested a trip to the Natural History Museum. If they are free to choose to take up a suggestion or reject it, it is autonomous education.
"As for the recommendations of the Badman Report making autonomous education impossible, all that is being asked is that parents have an idea what they hope their child will achieve. You Sharon, clearly hoped that your children would learn about money and acquire literacy at some stage."
I did not hope they would. I expected that they would at some point choose to learn about money and literacy because they are rational human beings and most future activities rely on these skills. "Autonomous education is not concerned with predicting or trying to manufacture certain outcomes or products from another's learning. It assumes that children are innately rational, creative and know their own interests better than anyone else" (Jan FW). My expectations may have influenced my children, but it must be a weak influence as I expected all of my children to learn to read at the same age as my early reader (a middle child, not the eldest, so I half expected them not to learn to read until they were older!).
continued...
...continued
ReplyDelete"I cannot see how writing those hopes down could have prevented your children learning autonomously."
Badman recommends that parents "must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months". Do you think they would accept, "I hope my child will continue to follow their interests as and when they arrive," as my desired outcome for the following twelve months? Because anything else would not be autonomous education. The only other option is for me to lie about my plans for the next 12 months and then try to explain why we made no attempt to encourage our child to follow the plans and they have followed a completely different path.
"Obviously this will change over the year and perhaps quite different things will be learnt, things that were not mentioned in the original plan. There is no suggestion that parents will be penalised for this or that their children will be forced to go to school if they don't learn what their parents said they would."
Then why bother planning ahead? Why not stick with the current system and look at the past year?
"Unless I'm missing something here, the only recommendations which refer to registration as a home educator being refused or revoked are numbers 23 and 24, both of which refer specifically to safeguarding concerns rather than education."
A suitable education is mentioned in the section of the consultation about refusal of registration but I don't think they specifically mention that they will refuse or revoke registration because of an unsuitable education. However, it's not really necessary to state it explicitly. They say that if an education is considered unsuitable the LA will issue a SAO. If the LA issues a SAO, do you think they will allow the child to remain on the home education register?
Badman asked the DCSF to "review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a “suitable” and “efficient” education in the light of the Rose review of the primary curriculum, and other changes to curriculum assessment and definition throughout statutory school age. Such a review should take account of the five Every Child Matters outcomes determined by the 2004 Children Act, should not be overly prescriptive but be sufficiently defined to secure a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated curriculum"
If this happens I can't imagine a scenario where autonomous education could survive, unless they are prepared to wait until the child is an adult.
Thanks for the offer to write for the blog but I shouldn't really be here at all. I started an OU course today, we have a business to run, children to educate and taxi around, medical conditions to manage, etc., etc.
P.S. you can change the time zone for comments in the blog settings
Sharon, I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. You offer a very clear and concise view of autonomous education, and its difference from what some call AE but for me is pure neglect. I think it is this which Simon is hoping that Badman's Review recommendations will clear away. However, the powers are already there to help neglected children. And by 'help' I don't necessarily mean serve a SAO. What is needed, for which no provision is made in the recommendations, nor in Ed Balls' acceptance letter, nor in subsequent statements by Baronness Morgan, et al, is proper training, funding and guidance for LA workers. There is no doubt in my mind that the Review recommendations, should they come to pass, will destroy autonomous education. It may well give a kick up the arse to the neglectful, but there is absolutely no need for it, especially given the affect it will have on the majority of home educators and autonomous educators particularly. With the greatest respect Simon, you may not believe that it will destroy AE, but I'm more likely to believe the people like Sharon and Allie who actually practice it than someone who has apparently only done a limited literature review, and who appears to be ignoring or misunderstanding proper AE method and practice. I see you never replied to Sharon's last comments on this or many other threads.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, who is this 'Anonymous' person who is so annoying? Don't they know how badly they come across? Anonymous: To someone coming to this blog, as I just have, with no knowledge of what Simon has or hasn't said in an article or forum or whatever, you sound irrational and he sounds reasonable. I am sure this is not your intent, and I understand that you are angry, but you are doing a disservice to yourself and to home education by ranting like this. As I say to my daughter when she is angry, take a deep breath, calm down and use your normal voice! If you were to discuss things properly as the people who dare give their names have done, you may find sympathisers. As it is, you are just irritating everyone.
So, Allie and Sharon, Bravo!