Many home educating parents in this country seem to be very familiar with John Holt and his books; Teach Your Own seems to be a particular favourite. In the same year that this was first published, 1981, another book on home education came out in the USA. It was called Home Grown Kids and it was written by Raymond and Dorothy Moore. The Moores had written a book a few years earlier than that, called Better Late then Early. During the nineteen sixties, they had been conducting research into the early childhood education movement. While doing so, they discovered a huge amount of evidence from all around the world which suggested that taking very young children from their parents and having them looked after all day by strangers was a bad thing for them, both emotionally and educationally. It's important to note that their conclusions in this were led by the evidence; they did not begin from the position that nurseries and kindergarten were a bad thing, quite the opposite. Older readers will perhaps recollect that during the late sixties and early seventies, the idea of nurseries where children could start very young was seen as a great liberation for women. They could have children and not be bound to the home as housewives.
The Moores found a direct and clear correlation between the age at which formal schooling began and a raft of later difficulties. These ranged from emotional difficulties and juvenile delinquency to various health problems. Interestingly, they also found that early schooling harmed socialisation. A lot of this of course ties in with what people in this country like John Bowlby were finding about maternal deprivation and the ill effects upon a child of being raised in the absence of a one to one loving caregiver.
I find all this interesting with reference to home education in this country. As far as we know, most home educated children in this country seem to spend at least some time in a maintained school. True, some pretty large research projects carried out here have shown a fairly even split between those who have never been to school and those who have been deregistered, but these must be treated with caution. Both Rothermel's studies in 1997/1998 and a large survey conducted by Education Otherwise among its member a few years later only had a 20% response rate. It is upon these that the notion that half of home educated children have never attended school is based.
When you talk to home educators, it certainly seems more common to encounter those whose children have attended school for a while. What is interesting is that it is almost always that they have attended primary school. One seldom hears of children who have been home educated at primary level and then gone to secondary school. It does happen of course, but it is very much the exception.
An awful lot of research now suggests that it is far better for a child to spend those early years with her parents, rather than in an institutional setting. The home is also a much better place to learn how to read and write and for the acquisition of other vital early skills. Any parent can teach a child to read and write in a relaxed and informal way; it is one of the great pleasures of infancy for both parents and child. Teaching Chemistry on the other hand to GCSE level when a child is fourteen or fifteen is, by contrast, a far harder and less enjoyable enterprise!
It strikes me that if parents are going to send their children to school for a few years and also educate them at home for a spell, then the most sensible way of going about the business would be as Dorothy and Raymond Moore suggested in Better Late than Early; teaching them at home until the age of eleven or twelve and only then sending them off to formal schooling. It is curious that parents in this country seem to opt for the opposite approach, sending them to school when young and then educating them at home when they are teenagers. I suppose that this could be due to the fact that few parents in this country seem to make a definite decision to home educate from the beginning and that many of them take this course of action as a response to problems. In other words, the whole thing is not planned in advance.
I would certainly recommend every parent to teach their own children from birth until around eleven. Secondary education is another matter entirely. It can be done effectively, but it is very definitely a full time job which does not suit everybody. Whereas teaching small children is less a full time task than a continuous delight. I know which I enjoyed most!
Teaching Chemistry on the other hand to GCSE level when a child is fourteen or fifteen is, by contrast, a far harder and less enjoyable enterprise!
ReplyDeleteyou dont have to teach this to a home educated child if you dont want to? what law says you have to?
Secondary school tends to coincide with the time children become pack rats. When a child who is bullied by the top dog is also shunned by people who would otherwise be their friend because they are also scared of the bully. When children in adolescence place a great premium on what other people think, and go through absolute agonies. In an inner city sink school, home education can be and is a life saver. And, in my experience, is definitely planned for. In this great internet age, it is perfectly possible to learn chemistry to IGCSE level, even if the parent has no scientific experience. It isn't a full time job to teach, learning happens all the time! And I am a 'structured' home educator, not an autonomous one.
ReplyDeleteGood point about secondary schools. This was what I was driving at, it is less an educational decision and more one in response to difficulties. It is indeed perfectly possible to learn Chemistry to IGCSE level; my daughter took all three sciences in this way at home. Learning does of course take place all the time, but I doubt that my daughter would have learn the various electron configurations and so on needed for getting an A* in the exam, without some pretty intensive teaching. This was of course in addition, not instead of, the sort of autonomous learning which is a pretty general feature of home education.
ReplyDeleteBrillent news Simon -Mr Graham Stuart M.P Just elected as chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee”!
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to see you write so positively about a book that formed part of my reason for following an autonomous approach to education. I must admit I was waiting for the 'but', but it never arrived. One of the main points they took from their research was that children cannot learn effectively until they are developmentally ready and this is often after the age at which children start school in this country. Once they are ready their ability to learn is amazing but if they have to learn too soon it can cause problems.
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote from the homeschool.com web site article on their Better Late than Early book:
"The Moores' 1975 book Better Late Than Early summarizes research supporting their contention that children are not psychologically ready for formal learning until age eight to ten. They suggest that waiting allows children to gain the maturity and logical skills necessary for formal work and prevents them from becoming frustrated and discouraged by attempts to handle material they are simply not yet ready to understand.
It is quite common for homeschooled children, especially those using a flexible homeschooling approach, to learn to read as young as three or to delay until age eight or nine. This may seem like a shocking idea, but boys in particular are often not ready to read until they are seven or older, and they quickly catch up to the early readers.
Because of the individualized nature of homeschooling, late reading is not a handicap as it might be in a conventional school setting. Schools rely on text-based instruction, but “late” readers at home simply learn through other means, like watching educational TV and videos, asking questions, and observing the world around them. Also, since the child is not labeled as “slow” or put into the slow reading group, their self-confidence and self-esteem does not suffer. The child will grow into an enthusiastic reader, and thus view reading not only as a tool for obtaining knowledge or keeping up with others but as an enjoyable activity."
Sounds very similar to claims made by autonomous educators and, of course, Alan Thomas.
There is a world of difference between formal education in a school setting, where strangers try to teach groups of children, and what happens in the home. Most of the research about the advantages of delaying teaching until a later age concerns schools. I have always thought that nurseries are a lousy idea. I'm not sure why that should surprise you; I was after all for many years a dedicated home educator!
ReplyDeleteYou say, 'children cannot learn effectively until they are developmentally ready and this is often after the age at which children start school in this country'
This is quite true for schools and nurseries, but I am far from convinced that it holds also for small children with their mothers and fathers. In other words, I am not in favour of getting four and five year olds to sit down and be taught their alphabet by a stranger, but I am completely in favour of parents teaching children all sorts of things from an exceedingly early age. School education and home education are two entirely different things and it is sometimes hard to apply the lessons learned from one to the other.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I have always thought that nurseries are a lousy idea. I'm not sure why that should surprise you; I was after all for many years a dedicated home educator!"
I didn't find that surprising at all. It was the support of writers who believe that late reading is best for some children (even at home) that surprised me. They didn't just mean that late to school is better, they also supported late academics at home - to wait until the child was developmentally ready.
Simon wrote,
"You say, 'children cannot learn effectively until they are developmentally ready and this is often after the age at which children start school in this country'
This is quite true for schools and nurseries, but I am far from convinced that it holds also for small children with their mothers and fathers."
You obviously disagree with the Moore's interpretation of their own research then. Unless you belive that a child who is developmentally unready to learn to read at school - for pysical reasons such as "eye sight, hearing, coordination, ability to focus, emotional stability, and others" as suggested by the Moores, miraculously and instantly improve at home. I don't have their book to hand (lent it to someone), but here's a quote from someone who has read it more recently, "The Moores collected early childhood research from medicine, ophthalmology, neurology, and psychology and came to the inescapable conclusion that for most children, the optimum age to begin formal academics is between the ages of eight and twelve!"
Simon wrote,
"In other words, I am not in favour of getting four and five year olds to sit down and be taught their alphabet by a stranger, but I am completely in favour of parents teaching children all sorts of things from an exceedingly early age. School education and home education are two entirely different things and it is sometimes hard to apply the lessons learned from one to the other. "
The Moores also studied home schooled children. Their research led them to believe that waiting allows children to gain the maturity and logical skills necessary for formal work and prevents them from becoming frustrated and discouraged by attempts to handle material they are simply not yet ready to understand.
Another quote:
"[the Moore's] studied homeschool families in the 70’s and 80’s to see what happened when children were free to learn at a more natural pace. The result was several more books, culminating with The Successful Family Homeschool Handbook. This volume elaborates on “The Moore Formula” which Dr. and Mrs. Moore developed over the years as they combined research with practical application... They do not recommend formal academic studies before age 8 and in some cases, as late as 12."
BTW, the do say that some children are ready much earlier (one of mine was ready at just under 3). Maybe your views are skewed by your single experience with an early starter? I've seen both and it was extremely obvious that the late starters were not ready at the same time as the early starter even though the early starter was younger at that point.
ReplyDeleteThe Moores' views developed over time. There's a bit of a difference between Better late than Early and Home Grown Kids. Also to bear in mind is that the concept of 'Reading Readiness' was a very big thing in the States at that time. The Moores were heavily influenced by this notion in what they wrote of learning to read.
ReplyDeleteI don't really base my views about early reading only upon my own daughter. She was certainly an exceptional case, not least in the amount of teaching she received! I used to work with children who had a delay in the acqusition of expressive langauge. As you probably know, other difficulties often run in the families of such children; reading problems being one of the most notable. I started doing stuff with the younger siblings, just for an hour a week. I would get mum to do things around this in my absence and the results were pretty good. We are talking here about three year olds from homes without a single book and with parents with very poor literacy skills themselves. Lots of left handedness as well by the way, which is another of those things which seems to crop up in those families. The results were very good, although this was not a proper clinical trial! I really wouldn't hold my own daughter up as an example of anything; I even stimulated her langauge development with machinery when she was a baby!
So you are basing your views on an exceptional case and problem cases?
ReplyDeleteDear me, 'problem cases'! Not quite how I would describe the children with whom I work. Always remember that a problem is a situation plus a judgement.
ReplyDeleteNever the less, an interesting point. If children who have all the odds stacked against them, to the extent that they belong to families with histories of poor literacy, language delays and so on, can learn to read at three or four without any difficulties, it rather suggests to me that those from more advantaged background are likely to be able to do so as well. The fact that these were, as you so elegently put it 'problem cases', strengthens rather than dimiinishes my belief in this. At the same time, these were not, as I said, clinical trials. More just a collection of random 'cases'. But hey, didn't John Holt become a guru on home education is just that way, by a few folksy anecdotes?
"At the same time, these were not, as I said, clinical trials. More just a collection of random 'cases'."
ReplyDeleteExactly. So these could have been the individuals that were developmentally ready for academic learning, - they happened to be physically ready to benefit from the help you gave. You would need to know the proportion that benefited, evaluated compliance and had a control group, before any conclusions could be reached. You do demonstrate that some children are developmentally ready for academics at that age, but we knew that already. The Moores' claim to have proven that some children are not developmentally ready for academics at that age. You appear to be disputing this but are not providing any evidence to support this theory.
"Dear me, 'problem cases'! Not quite how I would describe the children with whom I work. Always remember that a problem is a situation plus a judgement."
ReplyDeleteYou don't consider "three year olds from homes without a single book" to be a problem? You surprise me Simon.
'Reading readiness' or what you refer to as being developmentally ready, does not occur in a vacuum. It is possible to stimulate those parts of the brain which will be dealing with language. I would certainly not advocate sitting a group of small children down and making them learn the alphabet, although of course this does happen. A child who receives no stimulation at all will never be developmentally ready to read. One only needs to think about famous cases like Genie and her language development. A child in a lingusitcally rich environment will achieve what the Americans call reading readiness a lot sooner than one who lives in a home where there are no books and she is never spoken to. I am simply saying that it is quite possible to retard this process, as happens in some homes. It is equally possible to accelerate it.Talk of 'Being developmentally ready' can act to discourage parents from working with their child to achieving this as a goal; some may then just wait for it to happen.
ReplyDeleteDear me, 'problem cases'! Not quite how I would describe the children with whom I work. Always remember that a problem is a situation plus a judgement."
ReplyDeleteForgive me, this was meant humourously! I don't really speak like that in real life, I do assure you.
"A child who receives no stimulation at all will never be developmentally ready to read. One only needs to think about famous cases like Genie and her language development."
ReplyDeleteOf course.
"It is equally possible to accelerate it."
How? If you mean just the usual reading to your child, talking to them, playing games with them, jigsaw puzzles, pointing out and naming objects, colours, etc, I wouldn't call this acceleration. Can you describe efforts to accelerate development that do not involve academics but are above and beyond normal parent/child interactions? Do you have any evidence of long term benefits of earlier academics (in 'normal' well provided for children as opposed to deprived children)?
"Talk of 'Being developmentally ready' can act to discourage parents from working with their child to achieving this as a goal; some may then just wait for it to happen.""
That would obviously be a problem, children learn very little in a vacuum, but that was not my 'take' on the issue when I read about it all those years ago. Hopefully this isn't the case today.
No, I don't really mean just the ordinary things that parents do. I mean things like using very large wooden inset boards with three geometric shapes and teaching a baby about them. Encouraging visual perception with shapes in a structured way that is fun and then moving on to massed forms. Large numbers, about a foot long, cut out of plywood, numbers which a baby can handle and literally get to grips with. This leads naturally to the baby recognising these numbers elsewhere and can be the foundation of reading. Sandpaper letters and numbers, Montessori resources. Tracing letters and numbers in a sand tray. There are masses of methods like this that can be systematically used to help a baby to start reading. This is what I mean by stimulating or accelerating development. If you are looking for leads on this sort of work, you might care to look at Helen Davidson (An experimental study of bright average and dull children at the four-year mental level, Genetic Psychology Monographs, No 9 pp 3-4, 1931). Also The Psychology of Teaching Reading, Anderson & Dearborn, Ronald Press, 1952. The education of slow learning children, Tansley & Gulliford, Routledge, 1960, might also prove of interest. A lot of work in this particular field has of course been with children with learning difficulties. As Maria Montessori found though, a lot of this is transferable to children in the dull average to normal range.
ReplyDeleteWe had various wooden inset puzzles that included coloured shapes as well as animals, numbers, letters, etc, we talked about shapes when we saw or handled them, traced letters and numbers on signs, on each others backs playing guessing games, had sand trays which they drew and wrote in, played with beads on strings comparing lengths and counting, etc, etc. My none home schooling 'normal' relatives did similar activities with their children too. These are ordinary parent/child activities as far as I can see. They may have been unusual 20-30 years ago but most playgroups and parent toddler groups seem to have this type of activity available these days. Unless we were just lucky in our area?
ReplyDelete"Secondary education is another matter entirely. It can be done effectively, but it is very definitely a full time job which does not suit everybody. Whereas teaching small children is less a full time task than a continuous delight. I know which I enjoyed most!"
ReplyDeletePersonally I prefer the teenage years. We have some great conversations and explorations during which we usually both learn something new. It was great fun spending time with my children when younger but I learnt less myself and after several children it does become a little repetitive at times. Their interests are so much more diverse now, there seems very little overlap.
Actually, I'm sort of looking forward to teaching Chemistry GCSE if I get the chance.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that many children get to experience primary school is that a lot of parents start with the expectation of sending their children to school and it's only when this is obviously not working that they pull them out.
Actually, Dave, teaching Chemistry can be very exciting. My daughter still remembers with pleasure the time that we made Sulphuric Acid in the kitchen and then spilt it all over the table. There are so many more things one can do with a single child than are possible in a classroom with thirty of them.
ReplyDeleteA creative class can do all sorts of things, mostly not what the teacher intended :-) A-level was fun, we'd gained enough knowledge to be reasonably safe and had free access to various chemicals as we were deemed responsible. However, my best one was entirely accidental, when I was carrying a bottle of concentrated ammonia solution to a fume cupboard and opened it while still walking. I was also passing another child's distillation apparatus that was leaking hydrogen chloride and the result was an impressive white-out of the immediate area. I didn't realise at first, because I'd just learned another important lesson, which is that removing the top from the ammonia bottle while walking forward results in massive watering of the eyes.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely my favourite subject at school, even though I've not really needed it since. Just a shame that the Safely Elf seems to have abolished the chemistry sets of the 70s and earlier and replaced them with soap bubble kits.
You can easily improvise most experiments without a chemistry set. If Potassium Hydroxide is needed, as for some tests, you can substitute Sodium Hydroxide, which is caustic soda. There are plenty of things like that. Copper Sulphate can be bought in garden centres. You can even make indicators from things like red cabbage boiled in water. Actually making indicators, rather than relying on ready made universal indicator paper is also good for teaching.
ReplyDelete