Over the last few days I have noticed that when I talk about what I see as the virtues of structured teaching and the shortcomings of autonomous education, a number of people have spoken of how school failed to teach them the sort of things which I have mentioned. One person who comments regularly here seems to think that because I am in favour of conventional teaching, that this must mean I wish to see home educated children sent back to school. All this is very strange. The fault is probably mine, for not making myself clear enough.
I taught my own child at home from her birth until she was sixteen. I have been involved with home education in various ways, both in this country and abroad, for almost forty years. I believe that home education can be a vastly more effective method of education than schools can ever hope to be. This is not a belief that I have held for a few years, but for many. You would be hard pushed to find a more enthusiastic advocate of home education than me. If I thought that moves were ever afoot to ban home education in this country, I would work day and night to fight against such a development. I have never seen anything of the sort happening and consider it unlikely in the future. However......
I do not consider all methods of educating children as being equally effective. The use of punishments, for instance, I consider wrong and counter-productive in education. When I was at school in the late fifties and early sixties, I was beaten for not learning certain things such as French verbs. This did not help me to learn French. I do not believe that this sort of thing is likely to help anybody learn anything. It is a useless and ineffective method of teaching. On the other hand, there are ways of teaching which are very helpful and tend to work. This is the case with school based education and it is also the case with home education. If I meet a teacher who is opposed to the flogging of children as a method of teaching them French, I do not at once assume that he is against schools. I assume that he is against that method of teaching.
I am similarly in favour of some ways of home educating children and very dubious about others. This is because their effectiveness has not been sufficiently demonstrated, at least to my own satisfaction. To say, as some evidently do, 'Ah, he is not in favour of autonomous education, therefore he must be opposed to home education.' is absolutely ludicrous. I am in favour of effective education. Now of course I am quite prepared to believe that I am mistaken in some of my strongly held views on this subject. In other words, although I disapprove of corporal punishment as a useful educational tool, I may be wrong about it; it might actually be very helpful. In the same way, although I am less than enthusiastic about the supposed advantages of autonomous education, I may also be mistaken about that.
However, we can all of us only be guided by what we believe to be true. I believe that although children, like adults, will pick up all sorts of knowledge quite spontaneously, this is not enough by itself for their education. I am of the school of thought which holds that there is a body of knowledge and collection of skills which children must acquire whether or not they wish to do so. More than that, I believe that this is a right which children have and that anybody who does not do all in their power to see that children in their charge learn these skills and have this knowledge, are depriving those children of their rights; they are cheating them of their inheritance, if you will. I feel that this is wrong and so I will do what I can to see that those who have these duties towards children actually fulfil them. To me, this is a question of human rights and I view those who would fail to teach their children as violating these human rights. If in the process of standing up for the rights of those children, I offend the sensibilities of some adult or other, this does not seem to me as important as the rights of the children concerned.
I am, as I said, a great supporter of home education. But this is not an unconditional support, blind to the possible disadvantages of this sort of education. I would not like to see new laws which forced children to go back to school, but I would certainly like to see a law which compelled home educating parents to respect the rights which their children possess. To see those rights trampled upon or simply ignored because adults choose to pursue what they see as an 'alternative' lifestyle is unacceptable to me and I shall continue to speak out about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon says-but I would certainly like to see a law which compelled home educating parents to respect the rights which their children possess
ReplyDeletewhat about rights for children who want to be home educated?
what about respect from an LA to a child who wants to be home educated?
What about respect from Balls/Badman to a child who wants to be home educated?
"I would not like to see new laws which forced children to go back to school, but I would certainly like to see a law which compelled home educating parents to respect the rights which their children possess."
ReplyDeleteYet you would be happy to deny my children the right to choose the type of education they receive? The laws you were in favour of would have ended their preferred style of education (you can argue as much as you like that they wouldn't but we know our education style, we know what would have been required and we know their choice of education style would have been impossible, so please try to avoid that diversion). Do children only qualify for rights if you agree with their choices?
BTW, what do you think of a compulsory right? Bit of an oxymoron in my view. At least give children the right to choose how education is inflicted on them.
"Do children only qualify for rights if you agree with their choices?"
ReplyDeleteNo, my choice does not enter into it; it depends entirely upon what rights are actually guaranteed in law.
"At least give children the right to choose how education is inflicted on them. "
This makes any comment of mine superfluous!
"a number of people have spoken of how school failed to teach them the sort of things which I have mentioned."
ReplyDeleteI agree that structured home education is likely to be better than structure school education but the point still stands. We still have a limited amount of time so we cannot cover every topic and every fact it is possible to know (and the child will need to know as an adult) during the home education years. Therefore some facts have to be given priority over others. You believe that you are the best person to decide which facts their child should learn, autonomous educators believe that their child is best suited to make that decision. You believe that this will leave gaps big enough to make functioning in society difficult or impossible. Autonomous educators believe that any sane person, given the choice, plentiful resources, and a stimulating environment will learn the relevant information to fit them for life in society.
If I had feared at any point that autonomous education were failing my children I would have thought long and hard about making changes, but this was not the case. My children are making their way out in the world without problems.
""At least give children the right to choose how education is inflicted on them. "
ReplyDeleteThis makes any comment of mine superfluous!"
Yes, that didn't come out quite how I intended! I don't mean that education/learning is a terrible thing, learning is wonderful. I do think it is terrible to force an education on a child against their will (that's where 'inflicted' comes in) because I think it is likely to turn them off learning. Yes, children should not be prevented from learning so we need laws to protect them from being used as child labour etc. But given resources, a stimulating environment and any help they ask for it is difficult to stop education/learning from happening (in my experience).
""Do children only qualify for rights if you agree with their choices?"
ReplyDeleteNo, my choice does not enter into it; it depends entirely upon what rights are actually guaranteed in law."
But you want the law changed and this would change the child's rights so of course your choice enters into it. You chose to support a change in the law that would have reduced my child's rights.
" You chose to support a change in the law that would have reduced my child's rights."
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, I supported a change in law which would have extended your child's rights, but perhaps impinged in some way upon what you saw as your rights.
simon says-On the contrary, I supported a change in law which would have extended your child's rights, but perhaps impinged in some way upon what you saw as your rights.
ReplyDeletethat is just not true Simon! the change in the law would have forced many children back to school!
why did you refuse to listen to home educated children who said they did not want a change in the law?
your not intersted in children rights! you forced your onw daughter to do GCSE and she now cliams she was not home educated? but just did not go to school?
how much does it hurt that they is to be NO change in the law on home education? nothing no plans from the torys to do this they get my vote! LOL
your have a long wait before Labour get back in! your daughter on the wrong side sucking up to old mad Balls!
"On the contrary, I supported a change in law which would have extended your child's rights, but perhaps impinged in some way upon what you saw as your rights."
ReplyDeleteCan you explain what you mean by this? In what way would the proposed change in the law have extended the rights of Anonymous's children?
Interesting pilot study from the US looking at child-led literacy that seems to support Alan Thomas' research into late readers. It will be interesting to see a larger study.
ReplyDeleteParental Patience and Children's Reading: A Pilot Study of Homeschooled Children
""On the contrary, I supported a change in law which would have extended your child's rights, but perhaps impinged in some way upon what you saw as your rights."
ReplyDeleteCurrent laws are sufficient to protect my child's right to an education. The changes you supported would have removed their right to make choices they made about their own education. The choices they made enabled them to attend college, to function in the workplace and be active, productive members of society. They would have impinged on my ability to fulfil my *duty* to provide them with a suitable education.
Very interesting study. Certainly in line with my own experience.
ReplyDelete"Can you explain what you mean by this? In what way would the proposed change in the law have extended the rights of Anonymous's children?"
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, the children of Anonymous have a legal right to an education suitable to their age and ability. Because the current situation is that many local authorities are content to be fobbed off with an educational philosophy downloaded from the Internet, it is impossible to say whether or not the children are being accordered their right to an education. Some home educated children are not. If the law were changed so that more seraching enquiries could be made, then there would be more chance of local authorities being able to check that home educated children were actually receiving the education which they are legally entitled to; to which they have a right.
It could be because you're opposed to methods you believe can't work that people feel you're opposed to free choice in education... maybe because you find it hard to trust what people you don't know (and who haven't been particularly nice to you) tell you without "scientific" evidence, or any kind of written study that matches your expectations? Although why you think you should be able to put your ideas on to the rest of us I don't know!
ReplyDelete"I do not consider all methods of educating children as being equally effective."
It would be a rare person who didn't feel like that but personaly I feel I'd rather not be telling other people what to do or having them tell me what to do... I guess when people are thinking they have the right to tell other people how they should do things we have to look at their motivation. Yours seems to be that you feel sorry for all these children who aren't told that (and what)they have to learn in a structured way, and that they're missing out on the chance to be told to learn all the things that you think they shoud learn?
"No, my choice does not enter into it; it depends entirely upon what rights are actually guaranteed in law."
But we make the laws - they don't just appear! Our choice is what we use to decide what laws to have!
"the current situation is that many local authorities are content to be fobbed off with an educational philosophy downloaded from the Internet"
ReplyDeleteThis is not a problem with the law. The law allows LAs to make enquiries if it appears to them that no education is taking place. They would be justified in claiming that an Ed Phil downloaded from the internet, in the absence of any other evidence, gives the appearance that no education is taking place.
"They would be justified in claiming that an Ed Phil downloaded from the internet, in the absence of any other evidence, gives the appearance that no education is taking place."
ReplyDeleteThere has been a good deal of discussion about this on various lists. The Ed Phil is often supplemented with photographs, a diary, informal accounts of outings and so on. The truth is that it is not possible in this way to establish whether any sort of education is taking place, autonomous or otherwise.
"The Ed Phil is often supplemented with photographs, a diary, informal accounts of outings and so on. The truth is that it is not possible in this way to establish whether any sort of education is taking place, autonomous or otherwise."
ReplyDeleteAnd if you were one of the annoying LA employees who saw this as reason to believe that no education was taking place, you would still be entitled to make further enquiries. If the parents refused to co-operate you would be entitled to issue a school attendance order, and it would be up to the court to decide if education was taking place. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with the law.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"At the moment, the children of Anonymous have a legal right to an education suitable to their age and ability....it is impossible to say whether or not the children are being accordered their right to an education. Some home educated children are not."
My children also have the right to choose the education they receive. Yes, I know it's not legally required in law, but it's a right my individual children have now because I give it to them and the law does not prevent it. Your proposals would have removed this right from them against their will. As others have said, the LA has enough powers to ensure on the balance of probabilities, the test that would be applied in a court of law. This is the level of proof required in civil cases. A court will also accept evidence in any form though it most be enough to convince them on the balance of probabilities (so an LA cannot insist on evidence in a particular form without a good reason or they are likely to lose in court). This does not rule out home visits. Common law has established that in individual cases it may be necessary for a LA to make a home visit in order to establish provision, but this should not be a blanket requirement.
You appear to want a level of proof that is beyond all doubt. Even criminal cases only required a level of evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. Do you really think parents should be criminalised? Would sending a parent to prison and the child to school be better than an autonomous education in your view? Because this is the logical outcome of your ideas. Criminalising parents doesn't appear to be effective with truancy.
"Criminalising parents doesn't appear to be effective with truancy"
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, the truancy rate falls sharply after high profile cases of parents being sent to prison. I think that without such sanctions it might be a good deal higher!
" Do you really think parents should be criminalised? "
Emotive and essentially meaningless. We are all criminalised constantly. This happens if we fiddle our bus fares, evade taxes, steal, murder or drive too fast. We all approve of crimnalising large numbers of people, whether parents or not. What we are disagreeing about is precisely which parents should be criminalised. Should a parent who beats his child be criminalised? Some parents in America honestly believe that spanking is justified by the Bible. Surely you would not wish to criminalise such parents? What about a parent who insists that a child fasts for religious reasons? What about a father who committs consensual incest or fails to provided a suitable education?
To ask simply if I really think that parents should be criminalised is meaningless. Of course I do and so do you.
"What we are disagreeing about is precisely which parents should be criminalised."
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly the point and the reason the question was not meaningless. It should have been obvious from the context that I was asking about criminalising failure to provide a suitable education, not asking if parents should be criminalised for murder, etc! What a ridiculous way to read it.
There is no 'of course' about it. I do not think parent's should be criminalised for their education methods when there is no evidence that it fails children. You appear to be suggesting that failure to provide a structured education should become a criminal offence. My LA inspector is perfectly happy that my autonomously educated child is receiving a suitable education - why do you think they are mistaken?
"On the contrary, the truancy rate falls sharply after high profile cases of parents being sent to prison. I think that without such sanctions it might be a good deal higher!"
ReplyDeleteThat's easy to say but more difficult to prove. I think if there is any effect it is very short lived, especially as there do not appear to be high profile cases these days. On average one parent is jailed every two weeks for their child's truancy, how many have you heard about recently?
With truancy rates at an all time high it's hard to believe that jailing parents is making any difference. If a parent drags their child into school and leaves them in front of the teachers desk and the child then leaves the school, what is a parent supposed to do? I've read that this happens and I know from a family member that it happens. The teachers cannot touch the child to prevent them from leaving. Yet these parents are then sent to jail. Now you appear to want the same to happen to HE parents.