Sunday 7 March 2010

Cui bono?


I am confident enough of my readers' erudition to believe it unnecessary to translate the above expression. It means of course "who benefits?" and is the classic question asked by those investigating a murder. I have been considering this question very carefully in connection with the practice among some home educating parents of not encouraging their children to study for and sit formal examinations. Cui bono? Who benefits from this action, or perhaps one should more properly describe it as lack of action?

It is fairly plain at once that the person who benefits cannot really be the child. It is hard to think of any benefit or advantage for a child in reaching the age of sixteen without any qualifications. It will make life difficult if she wishes to attend a Further Education College, prospective employers will raise their eyebrows; indeed according to a recent survey, many will not even consider a candidate lacking any GCSEs at all. Some parents say that these examinations can, if required, be taken later by the home educated child. In some cases this is true, but it is hardly an advantage for the child to find himself several years behind his contemporaries in this way. It might perhaps not be a grave disadvantage, but that is the best one can say. Others claim that children can get into college on the strength of portfolios or auditions and this is certainly true if one wishes to study Performing Arts, Photography or Textile Design. It won't usually help for Physics or mathematics. The lack of GCSEs has restricted their life chances and closed off many options. This is a great disadvantage. Even if they would not have chosen the academic pathway in higher education, it would at least be nice if they were given the choice!

If the decision not to sit GCSEs or other similar examinations does not benefit the child, could there be anybody else who might gain an advantage from this peculiar and on the face of it perverse decision? Why yes, there are the parents! For the mother or father of a home educated child there are many advantages to this course of action and no disadvantages at all. Let's look at some of the advantages.

Firstly of course, one does not risk any sort of confrontation with one's child about study. This is a major cause of friction in families where a teenager is at school. Have they done their homework? Why are they going out late on a school night? Do they want to fail their GCSEs and end up working in McDonalds? Acrimonious debates of this sort are a regular feature of life for many parents whose children are at school. Home educate your child and don't trouble with GCSEs and you are free of this at a stroke! That's got to be a good motive. It is also extremely time consuming to teach your child to this level. Not only will you have to spend time doing it during the day, but your evenings will be taken up with preparation of the next days activities. No more relaxing in front of the television or computer once the child is in bed! For a single parent, this aspect of the matter alone can be a deal breaker. There simply will not be enough hours in the day to teach all those GCSEs and also keep on top of all the housework and everything else that needs to be done. Sometimes also, there is a living to be made. It is more practical to allow the child to spend hours browsing the Internet while you get on with your work.

Which would most parents rather do with their children; visit a park with a sketchbook and supply of pastels or stay indoors on a lovely day and learn about covalent bonding of molecules? Wow, this is a hard one! Personally, i think I'd opt for the park. Minor decisions of this sort can also have the effect of easing a child onto the non-academic pathway in life. Most of us would rather spend the day relaxing with our kids like this, rather than working at a table.

It seems clear that for parents there can be many advantages and benefits in not teaching their children to GCSE standard. Since this ties in neatly with the ideology of autonomous education, this becomes a lifestyle which is much easier for parents and can seem, even to them, as a principled decision made in the best interests of their child. In some cases it may well be so, but it is hard to avoid the suspicion that for many it is a justification for a life with children and teenagers which is far less stressful. The only ones who do not benefit from this arrangement in the long term are of course the children themselves.


17 comments:

  1. "Which would most parents rather do with their children; visit a park with a sketchbook and supply of pastels or stay indoors on a lovely day and learn about covalent bonding of molecules? Wow, this is a hard one!"

    Well, it depends, doesn't it? Yesterday afternoon a conversation with my son about the Secret Saturdays (a cartoon series broadcast on a television network m'lud) got on to maypoles, somehow. This led on to Jonathan Swift's poem. Ds already has a good knowledge of Irish folklore because of his interest in Celtic mythology, supported by William (Oscar's dad) Wilde's mid-19th century study of same. We moved on to Cromwellian England (already explored via Charles I's execution, a chance remark in one of Barbara Sleigh's novels about a Cromwellian table, a friend giving us some home-made mincemeat at Christmas - the puritans banned mince pies - and the closure of the Globe Theatre - a spin-off from Marcia Williams' Shakespeare books). We then had an in-depth discussion about the Restoration, followed by me finding a photograph of the Elstow may festival in the 1950s - knocks the current one into a cocked hat. Ds will remember every detail of this conversation. Apart from the dates. Numbers are a problem. He is 11 and was on SA+ in school.

    The park vs the chemistry evening as popularised by My Parents are Aliens? You're right, no contest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lord, no. Force them through the qualifications sausage factory, whether they like it or not. How can that possibly do them any harm?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I have been considering this question very carefully in connection with the practice among some home educating parents of not encouraging their children to study for and sit formal examinations."

    What if you have discussed the pros and cons of qualifications with your children (for the child, not the parent) in conjunction with their current plans and the consideration that their plans may change in future and the child decides that they do no wish to study for them? How much 'encouragement' would you recommend people use with their child in this situation? You have said before that you don't own your child - what do you actually mean by this? Does this include ownership of their time and what they think and learn or would you say - 'I am responsible for your education, you live in my house, so I will take ownership of your time and you will spend it studying for GCSEs'?

    ReplyDelete
  4. When I said that we don't own our children, I meant precisely that. We are however responsible for their welfare. Children are not always the best judges of what is good for them. My own daughter did not like cleaning her teeth when she was little, but that did not mean that I respected her wishes; she was not old enough at three to make an informed decision about the future benefits. Some children might not want to eat a healthy, balanced diet. This could be because small children do not understand about food groups and vitamins. It is our job as adults to understand this and do it for them.

    In the case of studying for GCSEs, any decision here can cast a very long shadow indeed. I doubt many children of eleven and twelve are old enough to make an informed decision about this. I do not and never did own my children. However, I have had to make decisions on their behalf and sometimes go against their wishes because of the greater future good which I can see and they, by virtue of their young age and limited apprehension, can not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It seems clear that for parents there can be many advantages and benefits in not teaching their children to GCSE standard. "

    So you think it unlikely that a child who is not studying for and taking GCSEs would learn anything to GCSE standard or above?

    "In some cases it may well be so, but it is hard to avoid the suspicion that for many it is a justification for a life with children and teenagers which is far less stressful."

    One of the reasons for AE is that children learn better in a stress free (or at least reduced stress) environment. Positive stress (meeting deadlines you or a course you have chosen to take set) can be very useful and good for study, but negative stress (you *will* sit down and study the GCSEs whether you are interested or not) is unlikely to be helpful.

    But AE, of course, does not rule out academic education - if a child is academically inclined the AE parent will support them. It seems unlikely that an AE child will reach 14 or so without them or their parents recognising academic inclinations and if they are recognised they would be supported (or they are not educating autonomously). If they are not academically inclined then there are plenty of alternative routes (BTECs, etc) where lack of GCSEs would add at most a year to study at a 16. I've also seen portfolios of English and Maths used with numeracy and literacy tests during the application process to skip straight onto a BTEC course that supposedly required GCSEs and other children who have been moved onto a higher course after a few weeks. I know several AE children taking academic routes and several that have found alternative routes into further education or employment. I know none that are unemployed.

    "The only ones who do not benefit from this arrangement in the long term are of course the children themselves. "

    Maybe not in your view but we've seen lots of benefits. I've seen a young person that still has a love of learning and have spoken to tutors who are amazed at their enthusiasm for study and their subject compared to the rest of the young people on the course who were of course 'encouraged' to study for a wide range of GCSEs despite their lack of interest. They put immense amounts of time and and effort into their work. If I had 'encouraged' this child to study a wide range of GCSEs I doubt they would feel the same about education or study (you obviously disagree and know my child better or do not view this as a benefit). I also doubt that they would be studying the same subject because they would not have had the time for the interest to develop. The amount of time and effort involved in its study gathered momentum rapidly over the last year or two of HE - there just would not have been time for 5-7 GCSEs in other subjects. I suppose it's possible they would have discovered another area of interest that they loved as much but it seems unlikely and does it matter anyway?

    Of course, her interests may change in future but they would then be in the same position as someone who had taken A levels and had a change in interests. The person with GCSEs might have an advantage, but it would only be a slight advantage saving them a year at most. If correspondence A levels are taken it will make no difference. But this is unlikely to be an issue as adults usually use access courses or other alternative routes when they have a change in direction past A level. They don't usually go back and start A levels in subjects relevant to their new area of interest and they don't usually need GCSEs in the subject they are newly interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In the case of studying for GCSEs, any decision here can cast a very long shadow indeed."

    As I suggest in the last para of the reply above, I don't think it would be a particularly long shadow.

    However, I have had to make decisions on their behalf and sometimes go against their wishes because of the greater future good which I can see and they, by virtue of their young age and limited apprehension, can not."

    You'd possibly be surprised at how much young children can understand and make rational choices about if they are raised (mainly) non-coercively. I have been.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Some children might not want to eat a healthy, balanced diet. This could be because small children do not understand about food groups and vitamins. It is our job as adults to understand this and do it for them."

    Since you did not believe that schools could education your younger daughter adequately I'm surprised you didn't withdraw your older daughter in order to home educate her for her own good. Why did you listen to her preference to stay at school but ignore a daughter's preference not to brush their teeth or eat a healthy diet? Is teeth brushing more important in the scale of things than education? Or did school (with a little extra help from you at home) do as well for your older daughter as you could have done at home?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Although I am not trying to answer for Simon, AnonySue, I can see a hole in your argument. There is a lot of good research on the advantages of tooth brushing, which might make a parent feel they have the right to overide a child's wishes, but, as Simon is always pointing out,less good research about the outcomes of home ed v school. So perhaps his previous experience with dd1 influneced what he did with dd2?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, I can see that previous experience might influence his choices, but by the time his eldest daughter was 8 he was convinced sufficiently that he could do better than school that he did not register his youngest at school. Unless he thought it was too late to 'save' his eldest daughter by then, why not withdraw her for her own good?

    I have been convinced by the evidence on both counts, teeth brushing and HE (the combination of the evidence of my own experiences as well as published research for HE as I suspect is the case for Simon) and felt comfortable taking a non-coercive approach with both issues. I'm just wondering what makes the difference between the two issues for Simon. Did his eldest daughter continue at school because he didn't want to coerce her by home educating someone who wanted to stay at school? Or is it that he was not convinced that home is better than school and effectively gave his daughters a free choice? Or maybe he didn't think his eldest daughter would benefit in the same way as his youngest for some reason? Just trying to understand if it was a coercive/non-coercive issue, or a lack of evidence of benefits that guided Simon's decision with his eldest daughter's education.

    Sorry Simon, for talking about you as though you're not here!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Leaving Simon's own family aside, I am not sure that the whole exam/non exam thing is nearly as clear cut as he thinks. Some families do not take exams (or at least not GCSEs) because they have a belief that they can do without them, either because they plan an alternative route such as OU or are aiming at more practical BTEC type courses. Other families don't do them because they have adopted the view that used to be widespread "you can leave then until they are 16"- even if locally that is no longer always true. For some families, taking exams is just too difficult - not only can it be a considerable financial outlay, but wrestling with the system, especially if you face difficulties with finding a local centre can be too much. I am not sure that I would say that there is any point in trying to judge why other families act as they do, or looking for winners and losers; my constant thought is always that some families may do things differently if they genuinely had more choice and more support to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Very true. We've been lucky so far in that our children have had interests that have a better fit with BTEC courses but we have an up-and-coming teenager who is likely to need a more academic route. Though saying that, at least one of the BTEC takers is well on the way to Uni and even art based Uni courses involve some academics (artist, materials and technique research, writing up of the same and development and expression of concepts, etc).

    I suppose my main disagreement with Simon is this idea of his that lack of GCSEs closes doors or lengthens study periods. With our older children the opposite would have been true as they would have wasted so much time studying for GCSEs that they would not be as far along their chosen route as they are now. They may even not have discovered their chosen route which would have been a real shame as they love them so much.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's an interesting point AnonySue, as to why we did not withdraw our elder daughter from school. We did do this for one day a week for some months, but then we moved just as she was due to start secondary school. Foolishly, we decided that because the secondary school where we were moving to had a decent reputation, we would let her try it. The other tricky point of course is that I have not been a completely free agent. My wife is what you might describe as a strong minded woman and so everything with our children has been a compromise. Coming as she does from a social work background, she was not as enthusiastic as I about the whole idea of home education. Left to myself, I would not even have considered school for either of the girls.

    I have certainly seen kids get onto BTEC course without GCSEs; I have never known a child get onto an A level mathematics course in this way. The business about access course to universities is also interesting. People regularly claim that this is a route into university for home educated children, but whenever I look into it, it does not seem to be the case. For example, there was excitement about an access course that Dundee University started a while ago, which guaranteed those who took it a place at the university after completion. However when I rang up, it became clear that it was for mature students, not home educated young people. I am always on the lookout for cases where young people have got to university without GCSEs. It seems to be theoretically possible, but nobody can give details of which university it has happened at. (Apart of course from Alex Dowty). Tell me, do you actually know of a university where a young person has taken up a place without having any GCSEs?

    ReplyDelete
  13. When discussing access courses it was in relation to adults who wanted to change direction. If you have taken GCSEs and then A levels maybe started a uni course or job and then find you've made the wrong choice, someone with lots of GCSEs would probably be no better off than someone with none or alternative qualifications. I can't see the disadvantage in a lack of GCSEs that you seem to see for most young people. Obviously they will suit some children and be the easier route for the occupation they are aiming for but I don't view GCSEs as essential in the way you seem to and certainly think there are big drawbacks with them for some children.

    Yes, I know of 3 young people currently at university without GCSEs (or at least without the full 6-8 GCSEs). One took the 2 year BTEC course equivalent to A levels in their subject (I think they started on the GCSE equivalent course but were moved up a course after a few weeks). Another qualified with OU courses. Another took English and Maths GCSEs along with BTEC courses at college, I think.

    I also know several young people who took various FE courses and are now employed and some who went straight into work, some from family connections. Funnily enough within my family, I think all of my nephews have started out in employment through family connections (and none have studied higher than GCSE level - all leaving school as soon as they could).

    BTW, have you ever enquired with a correspondence course provider about buying an A level Maths course without having the GCSE first? Would they refuse to sell one to you? Would they ask for documented proof that you have the GCSE? I suspect they would be more than willing to accept my cash!

    ReplyDelete
  14. There's no problem at all about studying A levels without doing the GCSE first. I have never heard of this being done, but you are quite right, as long as she stumped up the £300 I am sure they would be happy about it. I've known a few teenagers do A levels with their parents: I have not heard of any doing them by distance learning. I would be keen to know if anybody has heard of such a thing. I take it that you do not know of any young person who has got into university without any GCSEs? For some degree courses, the university is prepared to waive the requirement for A levels, but not for GCSEs! For example, some courses absolutely require English or mathematics GCSE and will not be at all flexible.

    The reason that I see a lack of GCSEs as a disadvantage for young people is that without them, they often seem to end up only on non- academic, creative courses. There is nothing at all wrong with this of course, if that is what they want. It can be good though to have a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I just said that I know of two that had no GCSEs and one who had just English and Maths GCSEs along with BTECs. Or did you mean without GCSEs or BTECs?

    Even creative courses involve academic elements - artist, material and technique research and write up, developing and writing up concepts with details of influences and the ideas behind them plus annotating sketch books in fine art, for instance. My DD seems to spend half her time researching and writing up the results.

    I agree it can be good to have a choice, but sometimes the very act of gaining a wide range of GCSEs might limit a young person in the direction they want to move in. If my DD had gained a wide range of GCSEs she would not have had time to develop her art work to an extent that she now gains distinctions in all parts of her course (including academic elements).

    Surely it's possible for some children to gain a wide enough general knowledge before around 14/15 that interests and direction can be fairly firmly established? If experiences by then have not stimulated an interest in science or maths, for instance, it's unlikely that a GCSE course will change this. Obviously if the desired direction requires particular GCSEs the child is likely to choose to do them, but otherwise, I cannot see any benefit in pushing them on a child.

    Maybe when a child hasn't developed strong interests in any particular direction there may more benefit in gaining a wide range of GCSEs in order to keep options open. It would certainly be worth discussing this with the child and looking at the pros and cons.

    If someone waited until they knew what direction they wanted to move in, do you think it would be possible to take the necessary GCSEs and A levels over a couple of years from home? Would you need a GCSE in Maths if you had A level Maths or would you just need GCSEs in other subjects? How many GCSEs do universities usually require in addition to the A levels (in courses where BTECs are less suitable)? Sorry for all the questions but you seem to have looked into this recently so it may be fresh in your mind! Some people take degrees whilst working full time. I found it quite easy to work full time and study for 2 GCSEs by correspondence over a year just after leaving school and have gained a HNC whilst working since so I suspect it would not be that difficult to gain a few GCSEs along with 3 A levels over a couple of years full time, but I've not studied an A level.

    ReplyDelete
  16. George Stewart8 March 2010 at 04:02

    Simon, I say this extending the right arm of friendship. Why on earth would you want to limit a child to rubbish GCSE examinations given out in government schools? That is what you are implying.

    The tide is already turning and even traditional educators are facing the cold hard reality that GCSE examinations have been dumbed down to the extent that in time they will no longer be fit for purpose.

    All the home educators that I know, hold their children to a higher standard and are preparing their children for IGCSE often taking math and english first.

    Personally, I would consider it a disservice to my own children, limiting their future choices, of which they have many because we home educate, had they been placed in government education with the ultimate goal of a handful of dumbed down GCSE scores. And that does not count the other damage they could do!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Which would most parents rather do with their children; visit a park with a sketchbook and supply of pastels or stay indoors on a lovely day and learn about covalent bonding of molecules? Wow, this is a hard one! Personally, i think I'd opt for the park. "

    I'd go for molecules every time - less energy consuming and far more interesting! I might be tempted to the park by pond dipping or a walk in the country - far better than a park. Luckily they had others who were happy to take them to the park and deal with pastels, etc.

    "Minor decisions of this sort can also have the effect of easing a child onto the non-academic pathway in life."

    But a decision to go to the park instead of getting the chemistry text book out doesn't rule out academics, they can just as easily take place in the park or, if immediate knowledge is lacking, stimulate research ideas for times when trips to the park are inconvenient. They could sketch flowers in detail and we could discuss stigmas, styles and ovaries, or food chains (oak leaves, caterpillars, birds, etc), molecules can be discussed when comparing ice and water, comparing stones and trying to work out how they were formed, water cycles, etc, poems about the park and what they see there, diary entries later, etc. The possibilities are endless and, as you've described similar experiences yourself, I'm surprised you dismiss a trip to the park so lightly.

    ReplyDelete