A few days ago, somebody posted a comment here asking if I could provide links to any research comparing the outcomes of conventional teaching with the results of autonomous learning. Of course I cannot do any such thing. Nobody who knows anything at all about autonomous education will be the least bit surprised at this.
For at least three thousand years, it has been generally accepted that the best way for children to learn is for them to be taught. There exists an enormous body of evidence to back up this belief. This has been gathered over the centuries by scientists, teachers and statisticians. A small group of people today challenge this and argue that children are perfectly capable of learning what they wish by themselves, enlisting the aid of adults as and when it is needed. This is a perfectly good theory and there may well be something in it. Unfortunately, like so many 'alternative' ideas whether in education, medicine or science, it is not possible to prove it.
In order to demonstrate the efficacy of traditional education, we measure, test and examine children. We look at their abilities at point X and then test them two years later to see if they have changed. This is done with millions of children across the world and the results compared and adjusted for cultural differences and so on. There was an opportunity for work of this sort to be conducted with autonomously educated children in this country. It was called the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. This would have examined the outcomes of autonomously educated children objectively. Baselines would have been established and the intentions of their parents compared with eventual achievement. There can be little doubt that this would have been a great chance to test the autonomous education hypothesis in detail. It was the parents of autonomously educated children who led the opposition to this scheme.
The reasons for this opposition were fairly straightforward. Like so many fringe activities, from ESP to homeopathy, spiritualism to Steiner schools,; this form of education must not and cannot be examined too closely without breaking the spell and damaging that which is being tested. It has been compared, by Ann Newsome of Education Otherwise, to a quantum system, where the very act of observation will alter that which is being observed! In short, it is not possible, even in theory, to test the effectiveness of autonomous education. The methods routinely used in schools and colleges throughout the world would place such children under intolerable stress and their education would be altered as a result.
We are left in a peculiar situation. It is roughly comparable to that faced by conventional medicine when challenged by some new crackpot cure. For example the traditional way of dealing with cancer is to cut out the tumour and then bombard the site with radiation and often use poison as well to rid the body of the remains of the cancerous cells. Some opponents of these methods characterise the treatment as 'slash, burn and poison'. Sometimes 'alternative' practitioners offer gentler methods, involving diet, exercise and meditation. None of these alternative methods can be examined closely though by doctors or statisticians. This would hinder the healing process and in any case the presence of sceptics can have a bad effect upon the whole thing.
One is reminded of the sort of thing the autonomously educating parents claim about their own methods. Measuring their child's progress would be harmful. Sceptical teachers or local authority officers would damage their child's learning if they were to be allowed access. It is all so eerily similar to other crank belief systems that one wonders that the practitioners are unable to see this for themselves!
This is however, why no body of evidence exists which has compared the outcomes of autonomously educated children with those at school. No such body exists, nor is it ever likely to do so. This does not of course mean that autonomous education does not work, merely that there is little evidence that it does. The only evidence is, like that for cures of cancer by carrot juice or meditation, a handful of vague and subjective accounts by one or two dedicated enthusiasts for the ideas. The rest of us will have to reserve judgement until the autonomous educators agree to a little research.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"A few days ago, somebody posted a comment here asking if I could provide links to any research comparing the outcomes of conventional teaching with the results of autonomous learning. Of course I cannot do any such thing."
and Simon wrote,
"For at least three thousand years, it has been generally accepted that the best way for children to learn is for them to be taught. There exists an enormous body of evidence to back up this belief. "
You cannot have it both ways. Either there is evidence comparing conventional teaching with autonomous learning that proves that it it better, or you just have evidence that conventional teaching at least works to some degree, you have the second. You cannot prove that conventional education is the best way without proving that other methods are worse. All you can show is that conventional education achieves what it sets out to achieve in a more children than it fails (and it probably does, just about). Research has also shown that autonomous education works for some children, it just hasn't shown yet how many children it fails, if it fails (though research into conventional education provides much evidence of failure).
BTW, autonomous education does not rule out teaching. I doubt any education can take place without some form of teaching, but your definition of teaching is different to mine. When you talk of teaching, you really mean a curriculum imposed by one person on another. I mean providing resources and information, giving my child as wide a view of the world as possible through trips, expeditions and mixing with a wide range of people, answering questions, teaching on request, provision of text books, support, etc.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"There was an opportunity for work of this sort to be conducted with autonomously educated children in this country. It was called the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. This would have examined the outcomes of autonomously educated children objectively. Baselines would have been established and the intentions of their parents compared with eventual achievement."
You cannot study something by changing it's very nature first. Requiring plans in advance and testing and measuring the retention of a pre-planned body of knowledge in a child's head are some of the main reasons autonomous educator dislike conventional education. Doing this would change what you are measuring and make the results irrelevant. If the Bill had become law AE would have changed beyond recognition.
"The reasons for this opposition were fairly straightforward. Like so many fringe activities, from ESP to homeopathy, spiritualism to Steiner schools,; this form of education must not and cannot be examined too closely without breaking the spell and damaging that which is being tested."
Of course it would damage what is being tested, but not in the sense you mean. AE is about education being an intrinsic part of life, not a separate entity to be measured, monitored and checked. It would be a bit like checking the growth of a nest of starling chicks by removing them from the nest each day to weigh and measure them. Do you think the results would reflect normal outcomes?
Sorry about the multiple posts, Blogger kept failing when I tried posting in a single post.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"In short, it is not possible, even in theory, to test the effectiveness of autonomous education."
ContactPoint will list all home educators. If all ex-home educated children were asked how they were educated and what they are doing now we might gain some insight into the outcomes of autonomous education.
"One is reminded of the sort of thing the autonomously educating parents claim about their own methods. Measuring their child's progress would be harmful."
Can't you not see that a child who is measured and tested is likely to view education and knowledge differently to one who isn't? Do you really think that a child who knows they are going to be tested to ensure their education is good enough to allow it to continue with the same methods (methods they prefer and have chosen) isn't going to change their behaviour as a result and see education as something you do in order to please other people instead of something you do for it's own sake through intrinsic motivation?
"This is however, why no body of evidence exists which has compared the outcomes of autonomously educated children with those at school."
Do we need evidence to compare outcomes if we can show that it can work and children do learn via this method? If you compare outcomes doesn't that mean that both methods have to have the same targets so that you compare oranges with oranges and not oranges with apples? I would prefer that my child is able to use a dictionary so that they can check a spelling in an important letter or report. Schools prefer and tests are designed to check memorised spellings. Why do you think that the schools target is more 'right' than my target and should take precedence?
"No such body exists, nor is it ever likely to do so. This does not of course mean that autonomous education does not work, merely that there is little evidence that it does."
Why do you discount evidence provided through observational research? Researchers have seen AE working in practice, why do you disbelieve them? Research in the US could find no difference in outcomes depending on methods used so we know that the form of AE you want to measure works (one distorted by measuring), unschooling is AE.
We know AE can work (through research and experience in families). If it doesn't work for a particular child we should trust parents to recognise this and change their approach accordingly, just as we trust them to encourage their child to eat a more healthy diet or get more sleep if they are tired. Why should parent's be automatically distrusted where education is concerned?
Apostrophe hell - Fail!
ReplyDeleteThe problem with testing is to determine exactly what you are testing, when to perform the tests and how to determine the pass/fail criteria.
ReplyDeleteWith conventional schooling this is relatively straightforward because there is a defined (and therefore restricted) curriculum taught, you test after all the material has been covered and you can pick a pass mark lower than last year in order that falling standards are covered by an apparent increase in the number of children passing.
With autonomous learning, you would need a custom exam for each student, set using information about what they had studied. Picking a time to sit the test could be problematic if the learning is on-going with no natural break as tends to be found in the school environment. Setting a pass mark is also problematic, because some children may do an in-depth study of the Roman Empire, whereas others may do a cursory look through because that's all they need for their main project.
A similar bumpy playing field will be found in many traditional subjects - some children are capable of passing A-level maths by age 11, but may not have advanced much in other subjects, whereas another child may be excellent at art but only has basic maths at that age.
The earliest sensible measuring point would be when children cease to be required to have compulsory education, but even that may not be valid if a family has chosen to omit GCSEs as pointless and are targeting a good result at age 18 for university entry. That one may also be invalid if a child has decided that life doesn't require university and has prepared a good alternative that doesn't require A-levels. The government, of course, requires that we all be good little work-slaves and do as we're told and get the required number of GCSEs and A-levels whether they're any use or not, whereas home educated children can see what's behind the curtain and are aware that all is not as it is claimed to be.
So, define your test methodology and we'll see if it holds water.
Several rough measures suggest themselves at once. The ability to read fluently by the age of eleven might be one. Another might be familiarity with the four arithmetical operations by about the same age. Of course some children will have special interests that are pursued fanatically, but one would expect a child of fourteen to understand a few basic facts about the human body and the need for a varied diet. One might also expect a child of that age to know something of the history of his own country. I don't think that it would be terribly difficult to come up with a very rough and ready checklist. A child who was unable to read at all by the age of fifteen would probably have some sort of problem, just as one unable to speak coherently by the age of four would give cause for concern. A twelve year old unable to calculate the change from a pound would raise eyebrows and so would one of the same age who could not tell you his address and telephone number.
ReplyDeleteOne of my children didn't learn to read until they were 13, could work out change at from a pound at 6, did no written maths until they were 14 but passed GCSE Maths, English and three other GCSEs at 17. Why would you view this as a problem that needs solving?
ReplyDeleteI don't regard it as a problem at all. Somebody asked whther there was any research comparing the outcomes of autonomously educated children with those who had been conventionally taught and I outlined the difficulties. If it is common for children at school to read at the age of eight, while many who are autonomously educated don't learn until they are thirteen, then that is interesting. It would be good to look at a large number of such children and see if there are any implications for their future lives. At the moment, all we have are individual accounts like your own.
ReplyDelete"Somebody asked whther there was any research comparing the outcomes of autonomously educated children with those who had been conventionally taught and I outlined the difficulties."
ReplyDeleteYou were not outlining the difficulties when you suggested the ability to read fluently at eleven as a possible suitable measure for comparing outcomes, you were suggesting it as an obvious measurement in answer to Dave's request for a suitable test methodology.
"If it is common for children at school to read at the age of eight, while many who are autonomously educated don't learn until they are thirteen, then that is interesting. It would be good to look at a large number of such children and see if there are any implications for their future lives. At the moment, all we have are individual accounts like your own."
As well as lots of anecdotal evidence from around the world (enough to discount any claim that it is rare) we know that late reading is quite common from research too. Thomas found that 19 of the 105 children aged 8 and over in his study were late readers. Using fluency at eleven as a test of suitability of education would therefore end AE for around a 5th of those following it. Yet in my experience (and Thomas') there would be no valid reason for taking this approach because the final outcome is at least as good or even better for these children compared to their peers (Thomas found that 'late' readers soon caught up with and passed the reading level commensurate with their ages and this has been the experience of many HE parents including me). If something you consider such an obvious, basic and suitable test is so clearly faulty, what does this suggest about other, less obvious 'tests' of suitability?
Testing is bad for education both in schools and out. As Alfie Kohn says about American schools, now also applicable to UK schools:
"It has taken some educators and parents a while to realize that the rhetoric of "standards" is turning schools into giant test-prep centers, effectively closing off intellectual inquiry and undermining enthusiasm for learning (and teaching)."
At least headteachers seem to be making a stand in the UK, I hope their boycott works.
"Using fluency at eleven as a test of suitability of education would therefore end AE for around a 5th of those following it."
ReplyDeleteI didn't say anything of the sort. i suggested using it as a rough measure and said,
"If it is common for children at school to read at the age of eight, while many who are autonomously educated don't learn until they are thirteen, then that is interesting."
You suggested testing reading fluency at eleven in order to compare the effectiveness of autonomous education to conventional education, but measuring at eleven is irrelevant if the outcome by adulthood is the same. It's a bit like the old potty training argument. It makes no difference at 20 if you were potty trained at 1, 3 or 5 (as long as you were not ridiculed and emotionally traumatised as a result) yet parents are often very competitive at the time (in both directions!).
ReplyDelete