Those who spend too much time in the middle of the road are apt to get run over from time to time, a familiar enough hazard for the present writer. The problem is that when any ideology or belief system has mad extremists at its fringes, many reasonable folk wish to steer a course somewhere between the opposite ends of the spectrum. In the case of home education, there are two groups connected with it which I tend to avoid as far as possible and with whose opinions I disagree strongly.
The first group are headed by Ed Balls, who suggested recently that children should be removed from their parents to be educated by the state no later than the September after their fourth birthday. He presented this proposal in the form of a classic false dichotomy, telling us that the parents could choose between nursery at that age or a school place. The thought that there is a third way which involves neither of these possibilities honestly did not seem to occur to him. This is mildly alarming coming from an Education Secretary. He typifies a certain sort of person in the field of education who feels that a child out of school is a child at risk of failing academically. One of his acolytes was on Radio 4 on Sunday. A Headmaster called Steve Wright was talking about the idea that parents should teach their own children. He gave it as his opinion that he would himself be unable to provide a full and varied curriculum for a child single-handed, singling out religion and science as subjects that parents would not be able to cover effectively at home. His message was, "Leave it to us professionals!" Regular readers of this Blog will be aware that I always try to discuss matters in a dispassionate and scholarly fashion, but here I feel bound to say that this prize fathead should be set up in a pillory so that right thinking citizens can pelt him with mouldy vegetables.
In short, the opinion of the faction led by Ed Balls is that parents cannot teach their children and would be foolish even to try. There is of course another group which holds that parents shouldn't teach their children and that it is harmful to the children to attempt to do so. This party is spearheaded by the so-called autonomous educators. A fairly typical example of the breed is Deborah Durbin, author of Teach Yourself Home Education, without doubt the worst book I have ever read on the subject. Ms. Durbin believes that her children are able to acquire correct grammar and syntax by writing thank you letters by themselves while their mother works on the other side of the room. Rather than teach them history, she feels that researching her family tree should meet the bill. In the face of such idiocy, words fail me. ( I am tempted to suggest that Deborah Durbin should join Steve Wright in the pillory, but since I have recently been accused of misogyny on the Home Education Forums, I shall refrain from doing so).
So there you have it in a nutshell; one group thinking that children cannot be taught at home and the other thinking that they shouldn't be. I cannot decide which of these two groups of extremists irritate me more. Ed Balls and his cronies are pretty annoying, with their absolute mania for prescribing every last, tiny detail of a child's education, but then again so are those parents who are resolutely opposed to anything even remotely approaching structure and planning in their children's education. Those of us who hold more moderate views are constantly at risk of being caught in the crossfire between these two sides. In my own case, for instance, I am regarded by the local authorities with whom I deal, as a dangerous fanatic who encourages the parents of children with special educational needs to withdraw their children from school and keep them at home. To the autonomous educators, on the other hand, I am a stooge of the DCSF and probably an employee of some LA education department to boot!
The problem is of course, that as both sides become more and more entrenched, so they become more and more extreme in their positions. The idea that home education was being used as cover for forced marriage was a ludicrous slur which originated with the DCSF. It was they who got Graham Badman to conduct his review. This rather makes it look as though the DCSF are, at the very least, a little uneasy about the whole business of home education. The autonomous educators are not much better, with their refusal to acknowledge the need for any sort of monitoring, registration or planning for a child's education. In the middle are the average home educators who just want to get on with their children's education and are quite happy to allow the officers from their local authority into their homes and see no reason at all not to share with them the plans that they have for their children's education. It is to this average, middle of the road crowd to which I belong. I suspect that they form the majority of home educators.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel your pain. Perhaps if you were to take a more consistent line that everyone should be free to home educate in ways that best suit their children and themselves, unless serious problems present themselves in individual cases - as in the current legal position, in fact - you might feel less 'run over' and generally happier in your walk along the road.
ReplyDeleteWell, that is pretty much my position. I feel that everybody should have the right to home educate how they please. I also think it reasonable that the local authority should see what is going on and be free to ask questions about it.
ReplyDeleteEven if the local authority might be prejudiced, with an anti-HE agenda? Many are.
ReplyDeleteI honestly can't see how this would make a difference. Many people don't approve of home education, including a lot of those who work for local authorities. I have always been happy to explain what I am up to and why I think it a good idea to all comers. If you adopt an unconvtional lifestyle, you find yourself doing this as a matter of course. I think it wise that the LA have a monitoring role in home education. I'm sure most of us are not likely to get upset just because some fool from the local authority is a bit sniffy about our ability to provide a proper education for our children. I dare say many of them feel just like Steve Wright, mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteBut if they're 'a bit sniffy' about it, aren't they likely to try to find ways of preventing you from doing it? By finding something 'wrong' with it, for example, even when it's actually working well for your child? An easy process under the Badman recommendations.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have thought so for a moment. Obtaining School Attendance Orders for children educated at home is very rare. I have not heard of them being sought for any child who is receiving any sort of education, almost always only those who have been withdrawn for other reasons.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the recommendations in the Badman Report go, I don't think that this will make any difference. The only relevant part is Recommendation 24, which says that LAs should have the power to refuse registration as a home educator on safeguarding grounds. There is nothing at all in the report about refusing registration because the local authority officer does not care for the style of education being used. See all the stuff about joint training with home educators. This business, about different types of education that home educators use, is specifically addressed in the report.
Well, perhaps it's easy to be cavalier about this once one's children are beyond the age of compulsory education. I'll look forward to it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've noticed before that when people run out of rational arguments they tend to fall back on the line, "Well your daughter's sixteen and so it doesn't affect you!" Terrible intellectual laziness, to say nothing of double standards. A number of prominent activists in the field of home education are in precisely the same case as me. Fiona Nicholson of Education Otherwise for example, whose son is also sixteen and of course Ali Edgley on the HE-UK list, both of whose children have been back at school for years. I can't help noticing that nobody ever uses this lame argument against those expressing views against the Badman Report.
ReplyDelete"Terrible intellectual laziness, to say nothing of double standards."
ReplyDeleteYou're so judgemental! You've really got no idea about the thinking and motivation behind my previous comment, so you jump immediately to assumption, condemnation and insults.
I genuinely disagree with you about the Badman report. Recommendation 23 includes the words: "And in addition:
■■ anything else which may affect their ability to provide a suitable and efficient education."
This can and will be interpreted exactly as LAs choose. It gives them licence to refuse permission to home educate on any grounds they like.
I don't know anything about Fiona Nicholson or Ali Edgely, but your apparent confidence that these recommendations will be good for home educators shocks me.
You say that I am judgemental, yet you brought into the debate facts about my personal life and suggested that they influenced my thinking on the matter of the proposed new legislation. You do this while remaining anonymous yourself. You don't see that that might be a little annoying? As far as Recommendation 23 is concerned, this specifically mentiones drugs, alcohol, domestic violence and offences against children. It too is concerned with safeguarding rather than with education per se.
ReplyDeleteIt does and it is, supposedly, but the specific wording of that last proviso gives LAs carte blanche to interpret it as they wish.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be annoying. I remain anonymous because I've observed the way you resort to character destruction of some of your detractors.
I don't seek to destroy your character and I'm not willing to put myself in a position where you can do that to me.
Hmmm, yet you feel ready and willing to do so to me, by making remarks about my personal circumstances. If you don't wish to become involved in character destruction, curious phrase by the way, then why mention my own life in that way? The recommendation which you seem interested in, number 23, is contained in the chapter headed Safeguarding in Badman's report. All the mention of "Anything else which affects the ability" and so on, is to be viewed in that context and not in the context of educational techniques. There is no suggestion anywhere that parents will be denied the right to educate their own children because somebody in the LA either does not understand or approve of autonomous education. This whole idea is a fantasy with no foundation in anything said or even hinted at by either the DCSF or Graham Badman. I cannot stand Ed Balls and his department myself, but I certainly don't suspect them of cracking down on home education.
ReplyDeleteRemarking on the well published (by yourself) fact that your daughter is 16+ is not character destruction. My children are not yet 16 - this fact isn't either. The age of our children does affect our respective vulnerability to the Badman recommendations. This too is a fact, not an insult. No slight was meant or intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is no suggestion anywhere that parents will be denied the right to educate their own children because somebody in the LA either does not understand or approve of autonomous education, but this does not prevent or preclude the likelihood that resulting changes in the law can and probably will enable this to happen.
I think that in itself is sufficient reason to oppose the proposals.
"Deborah Durbin, author of Teach Yourself Home Education, without doubt the worst book I have ever read on the subject. Ms. Durbin believes that her children are able to acquire correct grammar and syntax by writing thank you letters by themselves while their mother works on the other side of the room."
ReplyDeleteI've not read Deborah Durbin's book, but if you are not misrepresenting her book, it doesn't sound like any educational philosophy I've heard of. It certainly doesn't sound like autonomous education. Do you know if her approach has a large following? What's it called? Children can obviously learn grammar and syntax through reading and practice it's use through writing, but it's obviously impossible to learn new grammar and syntax through writing alone.
I agree with anonymous at 2:03 too. LAs already state that an education is unsuitable if it lacks structure. It's not a very big step for them to conclude that lack of a suitable education is a welfare concern and, as we've seen in the papers recently (see Sharon's link), welfare concerns are easy enough to 'find' even in well adjusted, healthy families.
"I can't help noticing that no-one uses this lame argument against those expressing views against the Badman report."
ReplyDeleteNo-one except you. I remember a few vicious personal attacks on this very blog, most of which you removed pretty quickly when you realised how silly you sounded. I notice that you are now very quick to accuse others of getting personal (any mention of your daughter by someone you disagree with is enough to provoke a storm of defensiveness and hurt feelings, which you appear to think is an adequate argument against their point of view). Interesting.
Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "vicious personal attacks" Morgana. I certainly put up a post speculating upon wwhat life might be like in Ali Edgley's family. I wonder if that is what you mean. I took it down not because I realised how silly it sounded, but because the idea was to discourage Ali Edgley from coming on here and being a nuisance. It worked. I'm not going to go into all the background of this, except to say that a couple of people made such pests of themselves that I wanted to make sure they stopped posting comments here calling me a liar and so on. My feelings have not been hurt by comments about my daughter, it just seems irrelevant when we are discussing something in an objective way. It also tends to be rather one sided when I am free with information about my persnal life and others are very guarded about theirs. My objection is that this is a feebel way of conducting an argument, not that I am hurt by it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that I am misrepresenting Deborah Durbin's book, Anonymous. She claims to be talking about autonomous education. Teaching English for her involves;
ReplyDelete"If they want to write a letter to a friend, I know that as they write it they are learning how to punctuate and write a grammatically correct piece of work. I do not stand over them because I feel that if they need my help they will ask for it, so I am often at my desk working."
This is from page 69. Just how children learn spelling and grammar in this way is a great mystery. Perhaps telepathy is involved? I have heard a number of autonomous educators praise this book and recommend its methods. I think that a Nobel Prize if waiting for the person who can explain how this sort of teaching actually works. I for one could have saved myself a lot of trouble if only I could have mastered this system!
That's the only quote from Deborah Durbin's book I've ever seen you give (several times). You are apparently condemning the book on the basis of this one paragraph, out of context. You could be suspected of using a lame argument:-)
ReplyDeleteAs far as it goes, I can see nothing to disagree with in what she says. Children learn to write English by writing it, among other ways, and they don't need supervision while they are writing. Autonomous children are quite capable of asking for help if they need it.
I think many people have tried to explain to you how autonomous education works. If you read the comments on your previous posts, I'm sure you will agree that Sharon deserves the nobel prize. Try re-reading her posts with an open mind.
"This is from page 69. Just how children learn spelling and grammar in this way is a great mystery."
ReplyDeleteDoes she ever mention that her children read? If so, I would suggest that she may mean they learn how to punctuate and write a grammatically correct piece of work when writing a letter by themselves because they are practising skills gained from previous experience as anonymous suggests above.
Reinforcement of skills learnt elsewhere through practice can still be involve learning. You might, for instance, try out a comma and decide on reflection (either immediately or when you see a comma used correctly later) that you have used it incorrectly. You have learnt something without being taught directly by someone else. I do this myself when learning to spell new words. I don't tend to ask someone to give me spelling tests (though one of my autonomously educated children did request daily spelling tests for a while). I read, use the word and hopefully notice if it looks wrong and look up the correct spelling if necessary. I autonomously educate myself by reading and using the new information gained until eventually I spell the word correctly without thought, and I'm sure you do the same all the time. Why couldn't this work for children as well as it does for adults?
PS Thanks Erica, I'm glad my posts are understandable to some!
"PS Thanks Erica, I'm glad my posts are understandable to some!"
ReplyDeleteAnd glad to see you and others responding much as I would have now I've less free time!
",,,the idea was to discourage Ali Edgley from coming on here and being a nuisance. It worked."
ReplyDeleteHow can you be sure...??
One lives in hope Anonymous, one lives in hope.....
ReplyDeleteI've just looked at Deborah Durbin's website and discovered that her eldest daughter is doing 3 A levels with ICS. One of them is English Literature. I think that speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteErica, Deborah Durbin's book is so awful that I hardly know where to begin. I won't attempt a full critique, because I have better things to do with my time. Let me just leaf through it and quote a few bits. One problem is that her style is almost impenetrable. Here she is on page 67, talking about autonomous learning;
ReplyDelete"Even before we think of sending our children to school, all their initial learning - how to speak, how to write their own name, how to sing nursery rhymes - is all learnt by us, the parents."
What on earth does she mean by this? Does she mean "taught" by us? Odd, if she is talking about autonomous education. Does she mean "learned by us" in the way that illiterate people use learn as a synonym for teach? Does she perhaps mean "learned from us"? Or does she mean just what she says, that we learned in the past to write our own names? It is literally impossible to divine her meaning.
On page 42 she says that when people ask why her children are not at school, she sometimes says that they have got a dental appointment, rather than admit that she teaches them at home! I have never heard of any other home educator doing this. On page 99 she says that the idea of engaging tutors to teach one's children is a good one and that the only real problem would be the financial aspect. Is this what most of us understand by home education? On page 68, she says;
"History lessons can be covered by exploring your family tree".
It is true that when my daughter was younger, we did explore our family tree. I don't recollect that she learned much history that way though. Certainly, now that she is studying A level history, our previous study of the topics such as those which she took for the IGCSE are coming in far more useful than the work we did on the family tree. She has needed to know something about World War I and also the Cold War, to say nothing of the changing nature of twentieth century warfare, three of the themes which she covered for IGCSE. So far, her Uncle Phil, who was the Shove Ha'penny champion on the Green Line bus routes in 1938, has not appeared in the syllabus. Still, it's early days yet.
As I say, the book is so dredful that I hardly know where to begin. Buy a copy, if you can think of no better way of using £9.99!
What on earth has the fact that Deborah's Durbin's daughter is studying for three A levels incuding English Literature got to do with her mother's ability to write a decent book? I am baffled, Erica! My own daughter is studying for four A levels incuding English Literature, but that does not tell you whether or not I could write a good book.
ReplyDeleteIt's got nothing to do with it. My point was that her autonomous education was successful enough to enable her to study English Literature at A level, as well as two other subjects.
ReplyDelete"There is of course another group which holds that parents shouldn't teach their children and that it is harmful to the children to attempt to do so. This party is spearheaded by the so-called autonomous educators."
ReplyDeleteNo, you are misunderstanding autonomous education again. If a child asks their parent to teach them something, the parent would not be educating autonomously if they refused to do so. As I've said several times before, autonomous means 'self-directed' and a child can choose any method, be it informal at home right through to school.
"What on earth has the fact that Deborah's Durbin's daughter is studying for three A levels incuding English Literature got to do with her mother's ability to write a decent book?"
About as much as the ability to write a decent book has to do with autonomous education. Is it relevant to anything? Why did you bring it up?
For my kids, our family tree was a great starting point for researching history. We learnt about the first and second world wars, the general strike, the history of the Trade Union movement and non-conformist Christianity, the Industrial Revolution and the Enclosure Act, the emancipation of women and the suffragettes, the problems faced by early Irish immigrants to England, the political history of Ireland, which led us to investigate the treatment of indigenous people in America and Australia, slavery, and so on. We also went beyond history to learn about classical music, shoemaking, steam engines and tailoring. This is how autonomous education works in practice.
ReplyDeleteMy kids have, at various times, had tutors for music, art, gymnastics, horse riding, survival skills, ballet, electronics and maths. Many home educators whom I know have used tutors as the need arose.
I have also used dentist's appointments and INSET days to explain why my kids are not in school, when I'm in a hurry, or when I can't face explaining about HE again, when I have reason to believe that I might get a hostile reaction if I tell the truth, and when I am talking to someone such as a police officer or a health visitor, who might misguidedly see it as their duty to make sure that the LA know about us.
I think Ms Durbin meant to say "learnt FROM us".
Part of a review on Deborah's book, http://suesbookreviews.blogspot.com/2009/06/teach-yourself-home-education-by.html
ReplyDelete"My only slight disagreement - and it's very minor - is that in writing about different styles of home education (and there are many) the author describes her own experience as 'autonomous'. Autonomous education is defined in the book 'Doing it their way' by Jan Fortune-Wood, and is basically a full-time child-led way of learning, with no required structure, no timetables (unless a child requests them), no differentiation between 'school' days and holidays.
My own style as a home educator was more like that described by Deborah Durbin - a lot of interest-led learning, but at least a small regular amount of maths and other overtly academic learning. It worked well for us - as I'm sure it does for her - but I think of it as eclectic, mostly unstructured education rather than fully autonomous."
Sharon, you ask why I brought up the fact that Deborah Durbin cannot write a decent book. I should think that this is obvious. If I read something which is excruciatingly badly written and full of weird ideas and is on a subject which fascinates me, then of course I shall mention it. Some people think my own style of writing turgid and heavy going. They also find my ideas on home education exceedingly odd. This is all perfectly OK. The fact that my daughter is studying four A levels tells us nothing at all about either my style of writing, not about whether the content is sensible. It is wholly irrelevant. That is why I felt that introducing the fact that Ms. Durbin's daughter was studying three A levels had nothing to do with the case. I confess myself utterly astounded that anybody would attempt to conceal the fact that they were home educating. Secretive behaviour of this sort surely cannot help but make others think that something a little odd is going on. But there, if people don't want others to know what they are up to, it's hardly my affair.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you address the point that I actually made, Simon? The fact that Ms Durbin's daughter is studying for A levels, and particularly an A level in English Literature, suggests to me that Ms Durbin's method of teaching English (if you want to call it that) worked very well. Ms Durbin's literary style is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteIt suggests nothing of the sort to me Erica. Why would it? I could sign my cat up with ICS as long as I paid them £299 per subject. What do you actually know about Deborah Durbin's daughter and her literacy skills, other than the fact that her mother has forked out £897 to ICS? I don't follow your reasoning here at all. Perhaps if she had got into a college to study A levels, one that required for example five GCSEs at grades A* to C in order to get on the course. But just paying out three hundred pounds or so tells us nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I looked at Ms. Durbin's website and now I realise why she is such a poor writer! She writes for the same trashy magazines that I do. I mean Prediction...... So that little mystery is solved. If you come up with any other information to demonstrate the efficacy of her teaching methods, be sure and let me know.
Somehow I knew you were going to say that. You're quite right. I guess we'd better wait until her daughter has her results before we make any judgment about the quality of her education. But I think we can conclude that she is either reasonably confident of success or rich enough to waste all that money. Who knows which?
ReplyDeleteI am open minded about these two options. You are clearly more familiar with Deborah Durbin's circumstances than I am. I really don't know enough about either her financial affairs or the educational attainments of her children to make a decision on this.
ReplyDelete"The fact that my daughter is studying four A levels tells us nothing at all about either my style of writing, not about whether the content is sensible. It is wholly irrelevant. That is why I felt that introducing the fact that Ms. Durbin's daughter was studying three A levels had nothing to do with the case."#
ReplyDeleteI agree, that's why I queried why you had introduced the issue in the first place. Your explanation is fine, you just felt it worthy of comment as a by-the-by but it has nothing to do with the point you were attempting to make.
You say,
"There is of course another group which holds that parents shouldn't teach their children and that it is harmful to the children to attempt to do so. This party is spearheaded by the so-called autonomous educators. A fairly typical example of the breed is Deborah Durbin, author of Teach Yourself Home Education, without doubt the worst book I have ever read on the subject.
So is this the point you are attempting to make, that autonomous educators believe that parents shouldn't teach their children and that it is harmful to the children to attempt to do so?
"I confess myself utterly astounded that anybody would attempt to conceal the fact that they were home educating. Secretive behaviour of this sort surely cannot help but make others think that something a little odd is going on"
ReplyDeleteWhy assume the worst and give it a negative slant by calling it secretive behaviour? If someone doesn't have the time or can't be bothered to discuss home education (again) it seems reasonable to avoid mention of it and this way seems more polite than, 'mind your own business', or words to that effect. As you've said yourself, we all tell 'white' lies when it suits us or to avoid giving offence.
Sharon, I think the point he's trying to make is that he is a moderate and reasonable home educator stuck between two sets of extremists, the "faction led by Ed Balls" and the "so-called autonomous educators", who are like no autonomous educators I've ever met. He doesn't seem able to understand that Ed Balls and his "faction", the people who believe that parents can't teach their children and would be foolish to try, will have quite an important role in setting up the monitoring he is so happy about. He still doesn't know what autonomous education is. And he believes that the majority of home educators agree with him.
ReplyDeleteAh Sahron, you have been much missed. Erica has held the fort valiantly in your absence, but her work lacks a little of your sparkle and snap. Of course one is being secretive if somebody asks why your child is not at school and you attempt to conceal the fact that you're home educating. I don't find secretive to be a perjorative word, more a neutral description. People occasionally asked me why my child was not at school, but I nver felt the need to dissemble. I can't imagine why I would. I have to say that i did not introduce the subject of A levels, as you seem to suppose. I had no idea until Erica told me that the author of Teach your Yourself Home Educating's daughter was studying for any.
ReplyDeleteErica said,
ReplyDelete"Sharon, I think the point he's trying to make is that he is a moderate and reasonable home educator stuck between two sets of extremists, the "faction led by Ed Balls" and the "so-called autonomous educators", who are like no autonomous educators I've ever met."
Well exactly. It's amazing how little Simon understands autonomous education when he spends so much time writing about it.
Simon said,
"I have to say that i did not introduce the subject of A levels, as you seem to suppose."
I wasn't talking about the A levels, I meant your comments about the quality of her writing, that's why I agreed with you when you said that your daughter studying A levels had nothing to do with the quality of your writing. You seem to have a lot in common with Deborah. You both write for the same magazines (though it looks as though Deborah probably makes more money from writing) and you have both made money from writing about something you don't fully understand (AE), as you keep demonstrating and just judging by other people's reviews of Deborah's book (apologies if they have misrepresentation her understanding of AE).
So what point were you attempting to make when you said that autonomous educators believe that parents shouldn't teach their children and that it is harmful to the children to attempt to do so (besides the fact that you don't understand autonomous education)? I mean, does it still work if autonomous educators are not against teaching, but only against parent directed teaching? Doesn't hold quite the same ring as your comments, does it? It would have been more accurate if you had written:
"In short, the opinion of the faction led by Ed Balls is that parents cannot teach their children and would be foolish even to try. There is of course another group which holds that parents shouldn't teach their children against their will and that it is harmful to the children to attempt to do so."
Sounds more like Ed Balls & Co think that they should control children's learning, you think that you should control your child's learning and autonomous educators think the child should control their learning. Still in the middle, I suppose.
"I don't find secretive to be a perjorative word, more a neutral description."
ReplyDeleteFor a writer you seem to have very little awareness of how your writing appears to others.
"I confess myself utterly astounded that anybody would attempt to conceal the fact that they were home educating. Secretive behaviour of this sort surely cannot help but make others think that something a little odd is going on."
Suggesting that people might conclude that 'something a little odd is going on' from a perfectly normal behaviour doesn't sound neutral. Why are you so utterly astounded that anyone would want privacy and not feel like discussing the ins and outs of their family life with strangers? Maybe there's a clue in the way you expose you life to public view. Not everyone feels comfortable with that amount of public exposure but it doesn't make them abnormal or suggest that they have something to hide.
I think it's a shame that Simon's daughter didn't learn much history from studying her family tree. What a wasted opportunity. It is an ideal way to introduce history to a younger child because it begins with what the child is familiar with and moves outwards from that.
ReplyDeleteConsider the difference between Simon's daughter's experience of studying her family tree and Erica's childrens'. For them it was the starting point for a huge amount of learning. I feel sad for Simon's daughter that her father has so little imagination, and she obviously didn't get much opportunity to use her own. This pedestrian and rule-bound approach to learning is what you find in schools, and is one of the main reasons I decided to home educate.
"I confess myself utterly astounded that anybody would attempt to conceal the fact that they were home educating. Secretive behaviour of this sort surely cannot help but make others think that something a little odd is going on."
ReplyDeleteInteresting. So someone says to Erica's children, as people do, "No school today?" Erica (hurrying to catch the bus) decides against explaining about home education again and says they're going to the dentist. The questioner immediately leaps to the conclusion that she is behaving secretively and that something odd is going on. Is that what it's like where you live, Simon? Do you feel obliged to be completely open and honest with everyone you encounter, for fear of being thought odd and secretive?
It's a very strange thing, but everybody seems to know so much more about Deborah Durbin than I do! Sharon even knows her annual income. Even more alarmingly, she seems to know enough about mine to know that it compares unfavourably with Ms. Durbin's. How does she know so much about my financial affairs? We should be told!
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, she suggests that Deborah Durbin does not know much about autonomous education, despite writing a book in which she claims to be an autonomously educating parent. This brings us happily to the crux of the matter. Sharon and others have said that I do not understand autonomous home education. I think it would be more accurate to say that I don't know how she educates her own child. I have certainly read all the books by people like Holt and Jan Fortune-Wood, who by the way coined the expression "autonomous education" in the first place. The problem essentially, is this. There is no clear and simple definition of autonomous education which would be readily accepted by all those who claim to be autonomously educating their children. Anybody who spends time on the HE-UK list will have observed great argument and debate between people who disagree about the definition and accuse each other of being "laisse faire" or "structured" educators and claim that they alone are the torch bearers of autonomous education. This does not surprise me; such sects are traditionally bedevilled with heretics and schismatics. I tend to listen to what people say and about the subject and then take an average, as it were. I don't know where Sharon gets off, telling us that Deborah Durbin does not fully understand autonomous education. I suspect that she means no more than that the woman does not agree with her own views on the subject.
I wonder if somebody here would care to draw up a short definition of autonomous home education and then post it on the HE-UK list so that everybody there could agree it? If once that were done then we would be able to discuss the whole business a little more rationally. As things stand, if I quote from somebody on Education Otherwise' site, I am told she is not typical, if I quote from books on the subject, I am informed by people like Sharon that the author does not fully understand the whole autonomous education thing.
Better still, Sharon, why don't you take up my offer of writing a post for this Blog? You can define Autonomous Home Education in a couple of hundred words and then see if everybody agrees with you? This sounds like a fairly good beginning. If you explain precisely what you mean by the term, then we can have a proper debate.
I certainly made no secret of being a home educator, if that's what Sharon and Anony Mouse mean. Why on earth would I? It was by way of being a game that my daughter and I played, seeing how long it would be before Essex LEA twigged that somebody in their area had a child who didn't attend school! It was fun. Of course I don't discuss my affairs with everybody, but i don't need to mislead people. If somebod asks a question which I decline to answer, I simply do not answer. Nothing could be simpler. It happened occasionally that somebody asked me when my daughter was young why she was not in school and I did not like their tone. In such a case I would say, "Tell me, why are you asking me that?" They would normally become flustered and the conversation would peter out.
ReplyDeleteAutonomous means self-directed. Repeat after me: autonomous means self-directed. It doesn't take a couple of hundred words to define it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Deborah Durbin in her book "Teach yourself Home Education" seems pretty well to say this and yet Sharon says that she does not "fully understand" autonomous education. I think there must be a little more to it than that. Have you witnessed any of the debates on the HE-UK list? Almost all the people there claim to be autonomous educators and yet they do not seem able to agree. Besides, your defintion is absurd. Autonomous means having the ability to govern or control the affairs of either a person or district. Are you really claiming that your child has the ability to govern his own affairs? I rather doubt this. If he expressed the wish to go for a walk at midnight, I don't for a moment thinks that you would allow him this degree of autonomy. You do not literally mean that he is self directed. You mean that you have chosen a very small area of his life and given him some choice in that area. I suspect that you arrange his diet, limit him in some activities, encourage others and make all sorts of decisions relating to his health and welfare. Try again and see if you can come up with a realistic definition.
ReplyDeleteSo what point were you trying to make, Simon, when you asserted that autonomous educators believe that teaching their children is harmful? I'm still waiting for you to answer Sharon's question.
ReplyDeleteFrom this, I induce it probable that you realise your definition of "autonomous home education" to be inadequate. Few of those who claim to be autonomous educators believe in teaching a child subjects against the child's will or inclination. Many think that this is counter-productive and can actually have the effect of putting a child off learning. A lot of them avoid doing it, teaching in this way, and hope that the child will be drawn to subjects that interest him. There are a number of expressions for this, depending whether one is American, British or Australian. Child led, joy led, child centred, autonomous, all with slightly different shades of meaning. Most who follow such philosophies consider it to be undesirable to sit a child down and teach from a set curriculum. Many feel that this can harm a child by giving him a bad feel for the whole education process. Many of those posting on the lists are convinced that they themselves were harmed by this at school and are determined not to inflict such harm or suffering upon their own children.
ReplyDeleteI'm finding it very difficult to respond to specific points because the copy and paste function only works intermittently.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway, I don't agree that my definition is inadequate. We will simply have to agree to disagree on the subject of autonomous education.
I'm still waiting for you to answer Sharon's question. Your lengthy explanation of how autonomous educators believe teaching children against their will to be harmful was unnecessary; it did not answer the question that Sharon was asking. In your original post you stated categorically that autonomous educators believe that teaching children is harmful; the will or desire of the children was not mentioned. What point were you trying to make?
"I have certainly read all the books by people like Holt and Jan Fortune-Wood, who by the way coined the expression "autonomous education" in the first place. The problem essentially, is this. There is no clear and simple definition of autonomous education which would be readily accepted by all those who claim to be autonomously educating their children."
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to accept Jan FW's definition. As you say, she coined the expression and I've quoted her here several times.
"I don't know where Sharon gets off, telling us that Deborah Durbin does not fully understand autonomous education."
I did make the point that this view was based on the review of the book quoted above, rather than from direct knowledge, so this may well be wrong. But what's so difficult? As a writer you should appreciate that the definition is in the name. Autonomous means having autonomy; self-governing; not subject to control from outside; independent. Why does the definition need to be any more complicated than the child having control of their own education with the support of their parents? Structure v. informal, teaching v not teaching, tutors or no tutors, school or no school are not issues because the child can choose any of these approaches to learning and more.
According to the reviewer quoted above, "My own style as a home educator was more like that described by Deborah Durbin - a lot of interest-led learning, but at least a small regular amount of maths and other overtly academic learning." If Deborah Durbin prescribes regular amounts of maths and other academic learning, her children are not completely autonomously educated (and if she claims they are she obviously does not understand the meaning of autonomous); if her children choose regular amounts of maths and other academic learning for themselves (as my children have at various points), they may well be autonomously educated.
Here are a couple of quotes from Jan FW again:
"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)"
"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"
The point was such a simple one that I am candidly surprised that you are unable to grasp it. Many in the educational world think that traditional education, conventional teaching if you like, is impossible in a home setting. They feel that you need specialised teachers, laboratories, sports fields, whiteboards and all the paraphernalia of the modern school in order effectively to teach children GCSEs or A levels.
ReplyDeleteOthers, autonomous eductors for example, feel that this whole process of conventional teaching is not desirable for the child. Some of them think it harmful to force a child to learn a whole lot of stuff that he might have no interest in and might actively hate learning. Some think that this can cause psychological problems, neurosis and a bad attitude towards learning and education in later life. tTey feel that teaching in this wasy is undesirable; that is why they do not send their children to school and avoid recreating a school atmosphere at home. A number of them claim to have been harmed by school and the conventional teaching to which they were subjected there. they prefer for their children to come to learning spontaneously and joyfully, rather than have it crammed down their throat against their will. I am guessing that you might perhaps not have encountered many autonomously educating parents, otherwise you would probably have heard of people who feel this way.
"II certainly made no secret of being a home educator, if that's what Sharon and Anony Mouse mean. Why on earth would I? It was by way of being a game that my daughter and I played, seeing how long it would be before Essex LEA twigged that somebody in their area had a child who didn't attend school!."
ReplyDeleteMust admit that I felt a little like that at the beginning but it wears a bit thin after 15+ years. I've never actually lied when asked directly, but must admit to not corrected the shop assistant at Tescos a few weeks back when they assumed my child was off school because of a teacher training day. Too busy loading shopping to want to risk an extended conversation about HE.
"In such a case I would say, "Tell me, why are you asking me that?" They would normally become flustered and the conversation would peter out."
I think I've been too conditioned to feel comfortable offending or upsetting people like this. I'd rather tell a white lie (yes I loved the sweater you gave me for Christmas) than offend someone unnecessarily. I would also have thought your response more likely to cause someone to suspect something odd is going on as a passing stranger is unlikely to ever find out that the dentist appointment didn't exist.
Maybe I'm less conditioned to worry about offending or upsetting people? Some might think so!
ReplyDelete"Besides, your defintion is absurd. Autonomous means having the ability to govern or control the affairs of either a person or district.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's why autonomous is combined with education, to make it clear that it's the child's education that is under their control? I extend autonomy to as much of my child's life as possible, but not doing would not necessarily rule out autonomous education.
"The point was such a simple one that I am candidly surprised that you are unable to grasp it"
I suspect Anony Mouse probably understands now you have added the child directed requirements to your definition, but your original blog article just states that autonomous educators see teaching as wrong and that demonstrably wrong.
"Maybe I'm less conditioned to worry about offending or upsetting people? Some might think so!"
ReplyDeleteCould be a male/female thing (women expected to be agreeable), I've certainly been offended far more often by men than women. Maybe it's something I should fight in myself for the sake of equality. Or maybe men should take more care?
But you still haven't answered Sharon's question. Your original post made no mention of compulsion; it simply said that autonomous educators believe that teaching children is harmful per se. The difference is such a simple one that I am candidly surprised that you are unable to grasp it.
ReplyDeleteI think that the best I can do is suggest that people read up a bit on this subject, starting with books by Jan Fortune-Wood. Since she is the person who coined the very expression "autonomous education", I think it fair to say that she probably knows more than anyone what the phrase means. If we read books on education from the traditional viewpoint, one word crops up again and again. The word is of course "teaching". In the jargon, this is extrinsically motivated learning; the motivation for learning comes from outside the child, it is stuff the child does not choose herself. By contrast, intrinsically motivated learning is that which is motivated by the child. In other words the child is learning about things that she wishes to find out about. An adult may help with this process, might facilitate it, but that is not teaching. Jan Fortune-Wood in her books barely mentions teaching at all. That is because teaching is not what autonomous education is about. Teaching is extrinsically motivated learning; the antithesis of autonomous learning. That is what I meant when I said that autonomous educators do not think that children should be taught. That is what I meant when I said that one group believes that parents shouldn't teach their children. This distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic learning is such a fundamental aspect of autonomous education that I feel that unless those to whom I talk are familiar with it and understand the difference between teaching and self-motivated learning, that the debate is probably not likely to go anywhere.
ReplyDelete"In other words the child is learning about things that she wishes to find out about. An adult may help with this process, might facilitate it, but that is not teaching."
ReplyDeleteIf my child asks me to teach them reading by working through the Toe by Toe phonic workbook and a maths text book, am I teaching them? I think I am. How would this look any different to you teaching your daughter from a maths text book? Is it intrinsically motivated? Yes, because the child asked to do this, does it willingly and can stop any time thy choose. Autonomous education does not rule out teaching. I haven't read Jan's book, but I was involved in debates with Jan and others over several years (on the TCS list) whilst Jan was developing her understanding of autonomous education, so I can be reasonably sure she would agree that teaching can be compatible with autonomous education.
"Teaching is extrinsically motivated learning; the antithesis of autonomous learning."
Why do you say this? Why do you think teaching can never be intrinsically motivated? If the parent decides what to teach and the child has no choice about the lessons it is the antithesis of autonomous education, but not if that method and subject are chosen by the child (or adult learner for that matter).
Here is an example of what I mean. This is from Jan Fortune-Wood, but I have heard and read exactly the same thing from many other autonomous educators. She is talking about the, to her, foolish idea of teaching children to read;
ReplyDelete" Yet this horrendous waste of hours is of less concern than the damage this formal instruction does to children's thinking processes and their ability to motivate and control their own learning. Children are having opportunities for their own intrinsic learning and play closed down to them not only for the hours spent in 'literacy hour' but by the corresponding amount of damage done to them. They might easily grow up never to take pleasure in a book again."
The whole tone here is opposed to formal teaching, which is explicitly stated as being harmful to the child. I do not say that you share this view, Sharon. I did say though that at one end of the education spectrum there were autonomous educators who believed that teaching was harmful to children. This is what I meant. Nowhere does she mention the teaching of children as being necessary or desirable. She is not alone in this view.
But Jan is obviously talking about externally imposed teaching in school here and even mentions literacy hour. She also says elsewhere:
ReplyDelete"As such literacy and numeracy are not forced components of a curriculum, but are outcomes within the process acquired in numerous ways, both formal and informal, depending on the child's questions and developing educational priorities. What could be more efficient than a child learning something to suit his or her own intrinsic and individual purposes?"
"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.)"
At least three of Jan's children have followed or are following structured correspondence courses (OU and Open College of the Arts). Would you say that correspondence courses (that involve text books, tutorials and tests) are not experienced as teaching by the student? Or does this mean that they are no longer autonomously educated even though their children have freely chosen to follow these courses and can stop following them at any point?
A few more thoughts on teaching. The examples of education philosophies for education authorities that describe autonomous education on the Fortune-Wood web-site suggest including information about any tutorials the child is undertaking. I don't know of any tutorials that do not involve some form of teaching. They also include the phrases, "suitable course of study", "programme of work" and mentions a literacy programme being followed by a child.
ReplyDeleteWhen a child asks questions and a parents answers or helps them find the answer, are they not being taught? To impart knowledge is to teach. All parents teach their children, including autonomously educating parents, it's unavoidable. Unless you narrow down the definition of 'teaching' to externally imposed instruction that the child has no choice but to sit through, teaching is always part of autonomous education as some point (unless maybe autonomous education starts in the teen years when the child can take complete responsibility for their own education and they never ask anyone else for information or help to learn something).
Teach: cause to know something, to guide the studies of, to impart the knowledge of, to instruct by precept, example, or experience, to conduct instruction regularly in...
If a child asks to be taught, can end the instruction at any point and have not been coerced in any way, it is child-led and therefore autonomous. This in no way contradicts anything I've seen written by Jan FW or the straight forward understanding of the words, 'autonomous education'. It's not teaching that is a problem to autonomous educators, it's coercive teaching.
Sorry, one final thought, possibly the most important.
ReplyDeleteIf a child asks their parent to teach them something (how to play a card game, maths, skipping, rounders or cricket, reading, etc) and the parent refuses, how could the parent claim to be providing a child-led/child-directed/autonomous education?
I made it clear in the opening paragraph of the above piece that I was referring to the mad extremists on the fringes of education. I did not say and have never thought that you yourself are a mad extremist. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people, not just those belonging to the educational establishment, would regard many of the opinions expressed by well known autonomous educators as sheer lunacy. The example I give above is a good one. Try suggesting to most parents that the teaching of reading to children is not only pointless , but actually harmful to a child's education. I make no comment upon this myself, but for most people this is a completely mad thing to say. Never th less that is precisely what the woman who invented the term "autonomous education" claims inthe first book which she wrote on the subject.
ReplyDeleteYour main point in refutation of what I am saying is that you yourself do not hold this or that view on the subject of autonomous education. I quoted Deborah Durbin and you responded by telling me that she does not fully understand autonomous education. I have in front of me books by Ivan Ilych, Holt, Jan Fortune-Wood and so on and am perfectly able to put forward the thesis that actual didactive activity is undesirable according to these authors. I have though a horrible suspicion that you will tell me that they too do not fully understand the matter! Perhaps we should leave at this; that you are not yourself one of the mad extremists about whom I was talking and that, like me, you belong in the middle of the road?
I am an autonomous educator. I know Jan and I have read her books. I have also been a teacher. My children have chosen to be taught several things, some formally, some less so, by tutors or teachers we have employed. They were intrinsically motivated, because they had chosen the method by which they wished to learn. I have explained this to you in my post above.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite simple; if the child wants it, its autonomous, if the child doesn't, it isn't. It's about the motivation, not the method. You seem to be having some difficulty differentiating between the two. I would not be an autonomous educator if I refused to teach my child when he asks; I would be a neglectful parent. I would not be an autonomous educator if I refused to help my child get a school place or to support him going to school if that was what he wanted.
The fact that Jan and Mike's children have chosen to be taught should give you a clue about her thoughts on the subject.
It's interesting that you have had many discussions with autonomous educators, here and on the HE-UK list, but you still don't understand what autonomous education is. You have a pre-conceived belief that autonomous educators are mad extremists, and when you meet one who isn't, you are obliged to conclude that she is not, in fact, an autonomous educator. I'm absolutely sure that if you met Jan incognito you would come to exactly the same conclusion.
The more of these people you meet, the smaller your group of mad extremist autonomous bogeymen becomes, until eventually it will disappear altogether, because, you see, they don't actually exist.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people, not just those belonging to the educational establishment, would regard many of the opinions expressed by well known autonomous educators as sheer lunacy."
I'm sure they would if they were presented the idea in the way you interpret and present it. However, if you suggested that children learn best when they are interested in a subject and have chosen to study it, I suspect that far fewer would view the idea as lunacy. To many it will be self evident as they will have experienced learning for pleasure as an adult.
"Try suggesting to most parents that the teaching of reading to children is not only pointless , but actually harmful to a child's education."
and,
"Never th less that is precisely what the woman who invented the term "autonomous education" claims in the first book which she wrote on the subject."
But this is wrong. Jan does not say this (at least not in the quote you give and from 'speaking' with her over the years I doubt this is what she means) and this misunderstanding of her point voids any arguments that follow from this misunderstanding. It's not the teaching of reading per se that Jan believes harms children, it's teaching that causes a conflict in the mind of the child that causes harm. Here is the best description of this process I've been able to find at short notice:
"TCS parents reject all these ideas and don't think in terms of getting children reading at all. Instead, they take the view that getting children reading is a manipulative aim. “So what?”, you might ask. “Isn't it manipulating them into something good?” Not really. Even if it ‘works’, it is also manipulating them into the attitude that reading is something tedious and useless and difficult and painful now, even though it will help them in their distant future lives. And therefore, even in the rarely-realised case of a perfectly docile child, the resulting conflict in the child's mind, with the child preferring to do or think about X, but also wanting the conflicting end of satisfying the parent, is quite likely to be counterproductive. How do you feel when you sense that someone is leaning on you to do something? The natural reaction is to do the opposite. Even if it is something you would have wanted to do, being pressured to do it can cause you never to go down that path, or to lose any such desire that you already have. It is likely that at least a proportion of people who can read, but come out in a cold sweat at the suggestion that they might like to read a book, react like that precisely because they originally learned to read under pressure."
"Your main point in refutation of what I am saying is that you yourself do not hold this or that view on the subject of autonomous education."
But I do hold similar views, I just disagree with your interpretation of those views.
" I quoted Deborah Durbin and you responded by telling me that she does not fully understand autonomous education."
I only have your quote and the review to go by so I can't really say. But if someone believes that autonomous education includes work set by the parent whether the child wants to do it or not, then how can anyone claim that this person understands autonomous education? Do you think they do? How would they justify calling something child-led when it is demonstrably parent-led?
"I have in front of me books by Ivan Ilych, Holt, Jan Fortune-Wood and so on and am perfectly able to put forward the thesis that actual didactive activity is undesirable according to these authors."
But is teaching inevitably didactic? If a child asks a joiner how to produce a joint and the joiner describes how it's done, demonstrates and then helps the child do it themselves, isn't this teaching? Do you think Jan FW, etc. would be against this happening, stop the child asking questions and tell them to go and work it out for themselves?
A slight problem that I have when dealing with you Anony Mouse, is that although at the moment you are prsenting as a polite and reasonable debater, you are rather apt to tell people that I am autistic or lack imagination if you disagree with the things which I say. That apart, the main difficulty is that like all members of tiny special interest groups, you have forgotten how ordinary people think and feel about some of the ideas which you take for granted. A good example is the one I mentioned, which is that teaching children to read systematically as is done during the literacy hour at schools is at best useless and at worst positively harmful for the children concerned. I have taken a quick straw poll of friends who are not autonomous educators and I am afraid every one of them agree with the proposition that this is indeed something that only a mad extremist would suggest! I am afraid that I am unable to agree with you that there are no mad extremists among autonomous educators; I believe that there are many. Perhaps my natural courtesy is to blame for the impression which you have gained about this. I regularly have debates with people who I do see as a bit loopy, but am too polite to tell them so. I am curently having some interesting conversations with members of the HEY youth council. They are a little more open about autonomous education than some adults. Although they are seemingly quite happy with their upbrining, some of the stuff they say would certainly be enough to persuade an ordinary person that their education has been neglected.
ReplyDeleteYou say that you would not be an autonomous educator if you refused to arrange a school place for your child if her wanted it and yet this is precisely what a number of autonomous educators have claimed to have done, both on the HE-UK list, the EO list and the EO public website. There have been a number of discussions about this very topic, with people suggesting ways to sabotage the child's placement or discourage him from wanting to go to school in the first place. I dare say that you will tell me that these are not genuine home educators, but for somebody not committed to this philosophy, it is sometimes hard to to know who is and who is not a real autonomous educator.
You know Sharon, I have been re-reading jan Fortune-Wood and I am bound to say that I disagree with your own interpretation. I am also quite sure that 99% of ordinary parents would indeed describe her opinions, for they are nothing more, as a bit mad. Here is a typical example;
ReplyDelete"As soon as we begin to construct a hierarchical value system in which reading a book is more approved of than watching a soap opera or doing a maths problem is more worthy than lying an the sofa gazing into space then we are interfering with autonomy; we are making judgements about the possible learning taking place in someone else's mind and we are damaging the process of intrinsic motivation which is at the core of autonomous education."
You may well agree with the sentiments; most would regard them as nonsense. Ms. Fortune-Wood quotes a number of parents in her book, evidently with approval. You seem to disagree with me that she views the teaching of reading as either pointless or harmful. Try this;
"This confidence that such skills as reading will be learnt by any child who is in a literate environment is widely shared and experienced by parents of children for whom autonomy is central to their education.
"If by essentials (one means) reading, then I don't think, it needs to be taught although I do think it will be learned along the way."
In other words, she is endorsing the cranky idea that reading is somehow acquired spontaneously and its formal teaching is unnecessary. Or this;
"I maintain that a child in modern Western society would have to be kept in a cupboard in order not to learn these things. Left to themselves, children will automatically learn the things that they need to function in the society in which they live. On the other hand, children who are subjected to 'teaching' may decide not to learn those things because they cannot keep up with some arbitrary idea of the standard they should have reached and it is less damaging to their self-esteem to exercise control and refuse to learn."
At best, the comparison of learning to walk and talk with the learning of reading and writing is controversial; at worst it could be described as utter nonsense.
So are you suggesting that if a child asks to be taught to read and the parent agrees, they are no longer autonomously educated? Despite still being child-led/directed? Do you think that Jan stopped being an autonomous educator when her children made similar choices?
ReplyDeleteNone of your quotes rule out teaching reading if that is the child's preferred method. Yes, direct teaching is not necessarily to learn to read, I've seen that with one of my children who learnt to read informally, it doesn't need to be taught as you quote states. But just because it doesn't need to be taught, doesn't mean that being taught to read if that's what the child wants, is out of bounds.
"...for someone not committed to the philosophy, it is sometimes hard to know who is a real autonomous educator and who is not."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should stop making sweeping statements about autonomous educators, then.
I'm not surprised that your friends agreed with you that it is mad and extreme to suggest that the systematic teaching of reading is in itself harmful. I agree. It can be harmful if it is not what the child wants or needs, or if the system used is not compatible with the child's learning style. This is why literacy hour is often useless or harmful. I have never said that the systematic teaching of anything is harmful, if it is what the child wants. My children have learnt many things by being taught systematically. However, they all learnt to read without any systematic teaching. That does not imply that they all did it without any help or guidance whatsoever. They each needed different kinds of help; one could not manage whole word recognition and needed phonics, another initially found phonics incomprehensible and therefore useless, but learnt to recognise simple whole words very easily, and was then able to use phonics to decode longer words. Another learnt to read with no help from me at all, so I have no idea what method she used. Whatever the method, they all learnt to read when they wanted to.
I have never suggested that you are autistic, and my comment about your lack of imagination was in response to your own statement that you were unable to use your daughter's family tree as a starting point for learning about history. I thought it was sad that your daughter had missed out on a learning opportunity that my children found exciting and fascinating, and which gave them a real understanding that history is something that happens to real people (such as their own grandparents), and is therefore a relevant and interesting subject.
I think describing you as lacking in imagination is less insulting and more accurate than your characterisation of autonomous educators as mad extremists.
There have of course been many discussions on the lists about children who want to go to school. When children are young, they may not realise all the implications of going to school. They may not understand, for example, that they will have no choice about what, when or how they are taught, or when they are able to go to the toilet or have a drink of water. They may not understand that the nature of school necessitates obeying a lot of rules which in the real world are unnecessary or even absurd, and that they will be punished if they do not obey them. They may not realise that they will be expected to stay there all day without seeing their mum, or that they may not be allowed to play with friends and siblings who are in different years. If they are to be able to make an informed choice about going to school, it is only fair to give them all the information. One of my children was determined to go to school at the age of 6. He wanted to be like his friends, and he was under a lot of pressure from other family members. He tried it, and hated it, for all the reasons I have mentioned. He had refused to listen to me before, but now he has experienced it for himself he understands, and has never wanted to try again. Some children want a uniform, or a lunchbox, and when they realise they can have these without going to school, they are quite happy. My son wore his school uniform regularly for about two years after he left school!
He was very distressed by his experience of school, and I wished many times that I had been able to refuse to allow him to go.
He was the latest reader of all my children. He found literacy hour incomprehensible and frightening, and would not pick up a book or a pencil for about a year after he left school. Even when he was ready to learn, he was nervous and easily frustrated, and could only tolerate a few minutes at a time at first. This was in marked contrast to my other children, who were hungry for information and found learning to read a joyous experience.
I should have said, a four year old is developmentally incapable of protecting her autonomy in an institutional environment such as a school. Therefore many AE parents see it as their duty to protect their children's autonomy when they are very young, and are thus justified in not allowing them to go to school.
ReplyDelete>>>>>>>>>Although they are seemingly quite happy with their upbrining, some of the stuff they say would certainly be enough to persuade an ordinary person that their education has been neglected.<<<<<<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be worrying that the education of some HE'd children isn't perfect. Yet, I find this to be true of school-educated kids too.
We ALL have gaps in our education, Simon. What is vital is knowing how to fill those gaps should the need occur.
I know very little about how the EU works. I've not really needed to so far. (Yes, I do vote in the European elections) But if I do, Google is at my disposal.{g}