I am often accused of ignoring evidence for successful autonomous education, although this is not really true. I examine everything in this area closely whenever I get the opportunity. So I was intrigued a couple of days ago when somebody posted the following here;
' My AS child took science GCSE's as a way of consolidating her knowledge, and was very disappointed when she realised that her knowledge already far exceeded that which was necessary for the GCSE course. She got A*s without doing a stroke of work. She is completely self-taught, and was teaching me by the age of 11.'
What are we to make of this? Firstly, it is apparently being touted as a case of autonomous education without any teacher being involved. ' She is completely self-taught' certainly suggests strongly that she taught herself without anybody actually teaching her. For most people, this would indicate that she has not been attending school. Also, this comment was posted following a discussion of autonomous education and home education. The implication is plain. This is certainly the impression which others gained as well. The next comment was;
' well done to your daughter for learning so much without a course, Simon really has no idea, does he?'
This person too seems to have got the impression that the child passed the GCSEs without actually studying a structured course, either at school or anywhere else. She already knew more than enough to pass the GCSEs and barely needed to glance at the syllabus. A clear triumph for the autonomous method.
I found this all very interesting for several reasons. Firstly because I give advice and assistance to some local parents who have withdrawn their children from secondary school. They all want their children to take GCSEs although this is very difficult because of the problems of coursework and practical investigations. If it is possible to take ordinary GCSEs without following a distance learning course or attending school, this would be pretty exciting. Most find GCSEs almost impossible to do out of school unless they have a few hundred pounds to spare on a distance learning course, which these people don't. Science is particularly tricky, because of the practical work. The second point is the use of the plural; ' science GCSE's ' , ' She got A*s '. Obviously, this person's child did not take the usual double award science but instead opted to take separate sciences; biology, physics and chemistry. Now I have to say that I have never heard of any home educated child managing to do this with the standard GCSEs, due to the problems about authenticating coursework and carrying out the practicals in the laboratory. I don't say it has never been done, simply that I have never heard of it, either in those home educators whom I know or on any of the lists. Naturally, I wanted to know more about the business.
Most home educated children who wish to have qualifications in sciences take the International GCSE or IGCSE. This gets round the problem of practical work in the laboratory. There is simply an extra paper which replaces the practical. This is how my daughter took her examinations in physics, biology and chemistry. My daughter of course did not attend school for a single day of her life, nor did she ever follow a distance learning course or anything of that sort; a genuine case of home education.
Now one of the people who commented about this may well have thought that, ' Simon really has no idea, does he?'. I understood this to be a reference to my supposed inability to appreciate the efficacy of autonomous education. Actually, I did have an idea; the idea being that there was more to this case of a child apparently being completely self-taught and breezing through separate sciences at GCSE than met the eye. So it proved, because when I asked about the circumstances, I was told, 'To answer your question on yesterday's post, my child did GCSE's at school.' This is pretty breathtaking. After claiming that the child was, ' completely self-taught, and was teaching me by the age of 11.' we are now told that she actually attended school and took her GCSEs there like everybody else.
It's a good job that I took the trouble to ask about this because otherwise people might have gone off with the impression that here was a child who simply taught herself science by the age of eleven and then passed science GCSEs without studying any course or syllabus. Let's hope that this scotches at least one little myth in the making. In fact this is just the sort of anecdote which many parents of ordinary schoolchildren tell all the time and nothing to do with home education. I have lost track of the number of parents who have told me, 'My daughter is so bright. She already knew everything that the teachers tried to tell her and she didn't do a stroke of work; just sailed through her GCSEs. And she got A* for them all'. My daughter did actually get all A* for her IGCSEs, but it took some pretty hard work by me teaching and her studying! I couldn't truthfully say of her that 'she didn't do a stroke of work'! See;
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/efnews/4569389.LOUGHTON__Home_educated_girl_gets_eight_A_s/
Shortly after this discussion on the comments, somebody posted a link to a GCSE course in Coventry which they thought might be suitable for home educated children;
http://www.covcollege.ac.uk/courses/Pages/Types/Course.aspx?@ID=882
I followed this up, but it is really aimed at overseas students from whom fees may be extracted. The person to whom I spoke at the college was surprised at the idea of a teenager without any experience of previous GCSEs starting the course and did not think it very likely. Back to the drawing board I fancy on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
' My AS child took science GCSE's as a way of consolidating her knowledge, and was very disappointed when she realised that her knowledge already far exceeded that which was necessary for the GCSE course. She got A*s without doing a stroke of work. She is completely self-taught, and was teaching me by the age of 11.'
ReplyDeleteHere's how I read this comment. Kid knows a lot about science. Decides to top up knowledge by taking GCSE courses. It's quite clear that the child took a course. The word 'course' is what gives that away. She's surprised to find she's already covered the course content and has to do very little in order to get A*s.
Clearly the expression 'without a stroke of work' is not intended to be taken literally because some work would need to be done in order to do the exam, never mind the coursework. The point the parent is making is that children are quite capable of learning what they need to know to take a GCSE without being actively taught. A contention which you consistently dispute.
Well I'm glad that it was clear to you from this comment suzyg that this is a child attending school, because it certainly did not read that way to me. If as you say,
ReplyDelete" The point the parent is making is that children are quite capable of learning what they need to know to take a GCSE without being actively taught."
then I am surprised that the child was not simply entered for an IGCSE without sending her to school. I suppose that there must also be plenty of children at school who could make similar claims. The problem is that when a child has been studying and taking GCSEs at school, it is pretty difficult to say afterwards that they were completely self-taught and already knew all the stuff! One wonders what the point of the school was if that was really the case.
You say suzyg that it was quite clear that the child was taking a course, but I don't see that at all. The mother said, 'and was very disappointed when she realised that her knowledge already far exceeded that which was necessary for the GCSE course.'
ReplyDeleteThis could mean that she simply glanced at the content of a course outlined in a prospectus and decided that it was unnecessary as she already knew it all. I thought that she had been shown the GCSE syllabus, looked through it and been disappointed that she already knew all that it contained. As I say, if this was really the case then why send her to school for a year or two to cover ground that she was already familiar with? The whole story if strange.
I didn't say it was clear to me that she was 'attending school' - it was clear that she was doing a GCSE course. She could have been doing this by distance learning or at a local college.
ReplyDeleteThere are all kinds of reasons why the child continued to attend the course. The school might only have agreed to her doing the exams if she took the course, there might have been difficulties finding an exam centre doing IGCSEs, she might have enjoyed being with children her own age. None of these reasons precludes the possibility of her being entirely self-taught.
This is pure Alice in Wonderland. My daughter is at college studying mathematics. She got 100% for her AS exam in January. Are you really saying that I would be justified in claiming that she is completely self-taught? Or that her knowledge far exceeds what is nevessary for the course? What on earth would she be doing at college if that is the case? I suppose that any child at school could make the same claim; that they already knew all the stuff because they had taught it to themselves and that the school had nothing to do with their GCSE results. This really is starting to sound a bit bonkers!
ReplyDeleteAt risk of offending or insulting autonomous educators, the closest parallel I can think of to this case is that of the use of alternative treatments in cancer. Some people use homeopathic remedies or oil of evening primrose or somthing to treat cancer, while still having chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Once their cancer is in remission, they claim this as a success for alternative medicine, believing that it was the oil of evening primrose which really dealt the knockout blow to the tumour rather than the chemo.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to me precisely similar to the case of somebody who sends their child to school to study for and take GCSEs and then attributes the resulting passes to something other than the school.
Whatever the truth of how the girl being discussed got her science GCSEs, it doesn't add much to the argument as to whether AE works, does it? She was at school and so we can't distinguish between what she learnt for herself and what the school were responsible for teaching her. Now I am defintely not an AEer, but obviously it does work for some children. Surely even Simon accepts that? The point is that some AE young people choose to study in a way that is indistinguishable from a more structured home educated child. I have had such young people in my maths groups - they have chosen to do GCSE maths and presumably chose the classes as opposed to doing it on their own (of which they were capable) because of the social aspects of such a group. If you came along and looked at what they were doing it wouldn't be any different from the child sitting next to them who had followed an entirely structured course. The only difference would be who made the decision that got them there.
ReplyDeleteSurely what Simon is discussing is whether AE as a whole leads to the same educational achivements as a structured apporach? Not actually trying to defend Simon here, but I think we are losing the plot by looking at one example (which is irrelevant in assessing HE because of the school context) rather than the bigger picture.
"but I think we are losing the plot by looking at one example (which is irrelevant in assessing HE because of the school context) rather than the bigger picture."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is Julie that one often encounters stories of this sort and nobody bothers to enquire too deeply into them. The result can be that parents gradually come to believe that their children might spontaneously acquire the necessary knowledge to pass GCSEs at A*. This may happen, but I doubt that it is common. Whenever anybody makes such claims, I always like to find out as much as possible about the circumstances. Still following the parallel with alternative medicine and cancer, a survey a few years ago purported to show the efficacy of various crank remedies by looking at the five year survival rates for those using magnets or elephant dung or whatever. These were pretty impressive until one discovered that most of the participants were also receiving more orthodox treatements from hospitals. Often, as in this case, the same things happen when one examines the claim, 'My child was entirely self-taught'. 'Yes, she was self-taught but also attended school for years' does not sound quite so impressive and so the school bit is often left out. True, this is one isolated example, but the whole notion of children being self-taught is founded upon many such individual cases. It is therefore worth looking at each case in great detail to see what the main points are. We owe this duty to other parents who might be considering allowing their children to be 'self-taught'.
"Surely what Simon is discussing is whether AE as a whole leads to the same educational achivements as a structured apporach? Not actually trying to defend Simon here, but I think we are losing the plot by looking at one example (which is irrelevant in assessing HE because of the school context) rather than the bigger picture."
ReplyDeleteI think what Simon is discussing is the reliability of the evidence parents who adopt autonomous approaches to education come up with to demonstrate that these approaches are effective in causing children to have a suitable education.
It's a valid question. But it begs other questions; what is meant by education? Are GCSEs or other qualifications a valid measure of educational attainment?
I think trying to determine whether AE 'as a whole' leads to the same educational achievements as a 'structured' approach is actually meaningless. There's no such thing as AE 'as a whole', nor structured methods 'as a whole'. They vary considerably because different people are involved and different skills and knowledge require different approaches.
Everybody has a slightly different idea of what constitutes a suitable education, so all one can hope to achieve is broad agreement on a threshold of attainment - and even then 20% of the population is likely not to reach it.
This is why successive governments have, wisely, not tried to define suitable, efficient or full-time.
"Are GCSEs or other qualifications a valid measure of educational attainment?"
ReplyDeleteIt was the mother herself who mentioned her daughter gaining A* at GCSE. She seemed to find this a valid measure of educational attainment. Had she cited another measure, then I should have been looking at that.
"Not actually trying to defend Simon here, but I think we are losing the plot by looking at one example (which is irrelevant in assessing HE because of the school context) "
ReplyDeleteHeaven forbid that you should harm your reputation by defending my views julie! You say that this example is irrelevant in assessing HE, but it is pretty typical of the sort of case which is always being put forward to support the whole idea of AE. Let's remember that it was posted on a site devoted to home education by somebody claiming to be an enthusiastic advocate of autonomous education. As such, it deserves the most careful consideration. We must remember that the whole cause of autonomous education in this country is largely supported by individual cases of this kind and we must look closely at each claim and weigh the merits if we wish to assess the evidence for AE in this country.
Sorry, bit of a mish mash of replies as I'm in a rush.
ReplyDelete"The mother said, 'and was very disappointed when she realised that her knowledge already far exceeded that which was necessary for the GCSE course.'
This could mean that she simply glanced at the content of a course outlined in a prospectus and decided that it was unnecessary as she already knew it all."
When I read this I assumed she needed to do the course in order to have coursework authenticated. In your version, how would they have done this given that it's clear GCSEs were taken rather than IGCSEs?
"This is pure Alice in Wonderland. My daughter is at college studying mathematics. She got 100% for her AS exam in January. Are you really saying that I would be justified in claiming that she is completely self-taught? "
Did Simone know the maths before she began studying at college and before studying the course? Because this is the impression the poster above gave about her daughter.
"it doesn't add much to the argument as to whether AE works, does it? She was at school and so we can't distinguish between what she learnt for herself and what the school were responsible for teaching her."
Except that the girl herself was disappointed that she already knew what they taught on the course. She had obviously been looking forward to learning more, hence the disappointment. It only tells you nothing about AE if you assume the daughter lied when she said she learnt nothing new. Why are you automatically disbelieving the word of the student?
"Surely what Simon is discussing is whether AE as a whole leads to the same educational achivements as a structured apporach?"
I don't think Simon is discussing this here. He particularly picked on this case because the mother claimed the child was self-taught before taking the course (as opposed to autonomously choosing to be taught or to follow a structured course - hence the comment about doing well to learn without a course). If he were discussing the effectiveness of AE the fact that the daughter went to school would have been irrelevant. The discussion should have been about whether the daughter chose autonomously to go to school (in which case her education was autonomous) or was forced to go (non-autonomous).
"I think trying to determine whether AE 'as a whole' leads to the same educational achievements as a 'structured' approach is actually meaningless."
Especially as they are likely to have different goals.
"I followed this up, but it is really aimed at overseas students from whom fees may be extracted. The person to whom I spoke at the college was surprised at the idea of a teenager without any experience of previous GCSEs starting the course and did not think it very likely. Back to the drawing board I fancy on this one."
ReplyDeleteMy son was accepted on a course exactly like this with no previous experience of GCSEs. If it is suitable for foreign students who have not experience of GCSEs, why wouldn't it be suitable for HE children? I would be very surprised if they refused a child a place if there were places available.
Thanks for pointing out this much informative stuff with us, this is really what we all need to know and i am sure through this way we can get more better results.
ReplyDelete"'Are GCSEs or other qualifications a valid measure of educational attainment?"
ReplyDeleteIt was the mother herself who mentioned her daughter gaining A* at GCSE. She seemed to find this a valid measure of educational attainment. Had she cited another measure, then I should have been looking at that. '
I was responding to Julie's comment about AE as a whole vs structured methods. A GCSE A* grade is a GCSE A* grade. Whether it's a valid measure of educational attainment depends on one's definition of education. I thought the point the mother was making was that her daughter had covered the course content independently, not that getting an A* showed that she was 'educated'. If anything, the girl was a bit disappointed that the course wasn't more challenging.
Anon Y - with regards to the Coventry course- I just don't know. It is interesting that the girl they featured may well have filled the "come from overseas" model - and the mention of "internattional fees" is possibly significant, but one suspects they couldn't actually turn down a home grown student - would be rather racist!
ReplyDeleteOne of our local colleges does offer a 5GCSE option (but the 3 nearer colleges don't) However the college claim that to take that option you need to already have taken 3 main GCSE (maths, English lang and science) and got a D to G pass (ie a fail). The only HEer I know who has taken this route achieved at home maths and English passes first (ie A to C) and then went there to take 5 more GCSES; they seemed happy with this. According to the college a child with no GCSES would have to do level 1 courses first and then move onto the GCSES the second year. Whether they would be flexible for HE is as yet untried. We tried approaching the same college for A levels (my daughter does have GCSES) and they were less than helpful.
The clue about this course is that if you ring up and ask about it, as I did, the woman immediately says, 'Oh, our overseas students' advisor will back in a week.' The idea that a student who had never studied at school might get on it has never occurred to anybody there. It is easy enough to rig these things. For instance it says;
ReplyDelete' You should be able to demonstrate some ability to study at GCSE level and you will also have to take an English and Maths test. A place on the course is subject to a successful interview with the course tutor and you will also be expected to provide a satisfactory reference.'
Plenty of scope for turning down any home educated young person there on several pretexts. Why would they wish to do that? Because this is really a money making dodge aimed at foreigners. They want paying students on it; it is not a public service for kids whose parents did not send them to school!
It is all a bit of a sad reflection on college and uni funding, isn't it? A friend of mine (with an US mum, but born here) was offered an interview for a prestigious art college in London, until the college realised their mistake ( she had a US passport but was eligible for UK uni funding as she had always lived here) and withdrew the interview invitation once they twigged they wouldn't get international fees from her!
ReplyDelete"She was at school and so we can't distinguish between what she learnt for herself and what the school were responsible for teaching her."
ReplyDeleteFor many, if not most of us in the HE community, the place of education is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether an education is autonomous or not. The divide is not one of free-form versus structure, but of autonomous versus coercive. So for example, a child can be autonomously schooled, if he so chooses. "Autonomous", afterall, simply means "self governing".
Perhaps this is the source of your confusion Simon. I would suggest that it might help if you understood the basics before attempting a critique; in which regard, I would highly recommend a little reading on the subject of Popperian epistemology as it makes huge sense and is where much of the thinking springs from.
Even if you choose not to pursue this line, perhaps, given your own difficulties with these concepts, you will now appreciate quite why autonomous HEors are so fearful of being misunderstood by LA officers.
Carlotta's comment above is a classic attempt to muddy the waters in what is basically a very simple matter. I don't think that we really need Karl Popper's help to decide if we are being sold a pig in a poke! The mother gave the impression that her daughter was completely self-taught. Leaving aside the finer points of AE, this suggests to any ordinary person that the child taught herself without anybody teaching her. I can think of no other construction to put upon the words. She goes on to say that this self-tuition provided her daughter with all the necessary knowledge to pass GCSEs in science. There was no mention of school. The claim is fairly clear; that a child taught herself all that she needed to pass GCSEs. When we learn that the child was actually attending school and took GCSEs there, it certainly becomes impossible to say whether or not it was the teaching at school or the self-teaching which furnished her with the necessary knowledge. The question of whether the child chose to attend school or whether she was coerced into it is completely irrelevant. true, had she chosen to attend school it would still have counted as autonomous education, whereas if she had no choise this would have been coercive. The salient point is however not what motivated her to attend school but the fact that she was there at all. It is her presence at school which casts doubt upon the claimthat she was completely self-taught, not the chain of event which led to her being there.
ReplyDeleteI hope that Carlotta will now tell us what Karl Popper wrote which would help us with this situation.
"There was no mention of school. The claim is fairly clear; that a child taught herself all that she needed to pass GCSEs. When we learn that the child was actually attending school and took GCSEs there, it certainly becomes impossible to say whether or not it was the teaching at school or the self-teaching which furnished her with the necessary knowledge."
ReplyDeleteOnly if you decide that the child and mother are lying.
"Only if you decide that the child and mother are lying."
ReplyDeleteWhy are so many of the people who comment on here obsessed with lying? In the real world people exaggerate, get mudddled up, forget things, make mistakes, fail to tell the whole story and so on. For the people here though, anybody who fails to speaks the truth as though they were giving evidence in a police court is guilty of lying. Very strange.
Perhaps I should clarify. My daughter decided (autonomously) to attend school for years 10 and 11, to follow the GCSE courses, do the coursework and take the exams. Although she was helped by the GCSE courses in other subjects, she already knew everything she needed to know for GCSE sciences. Up to the point that she went to school, her knowledge of science was entirely self-taught, therefore she did not need to do any work other than the coursework which was required for the exam.
ReplyDeleteI have just read Carlotta's comment again carefully. It is very bizarre. I think that some home educators use words to mean what they wish them to mean and these meanings are quite different to those used by everybody else in the rest of society. I shall have one last try at this. Forget about autonomous education for a moment, because it is not really relevant. Let us suppose that I tell you that I am a portrait painter and that I am completely self-taught. You might reasonably infer from this statement that I had taught myself to paint rather than other people teaching me. If a little while later you found that I had studied at the Slade for three years and had a degree in art, then you might well say to yourself, 'That's a bit funny, I thought he said that he was completely self-taught!' This contradiction is completely separate from my motives for studying art or anything else; the two statements do not agree with each other and some sort of explanation would be in order. I shall be keen to hear what Karl Popper said about this which would enable us to reconcile these two apparently contradictory accounts.
ReplyDelete"For the people here though, anybody who fails to speaks the truth as though they were giving evidence in a police court is guilty of lying. Very strange."
ReplyDeleteMaybe people who invariably tell the truth tend to believe that others tell the truth too, and vice versa, of course. I find it very strange that you automatically disbelieve any evidence that disagrees with your pre-conceived attitudes.
Thanks for the clarification Anonymous X, though this was the impression I'd gained from your previous messages it's nice to have it confirmed.
"This contradiction is completely separate from my motives for studying art or anything else; the two statements do not agree with each other and some sort of explanation would be in order."
ReplyDeleteDid Anonymous X's clarification help? Her daughter did not learn anything new in the science classes at school. The only reason she needed to take the course was for the coursework authentication. Or do you find it impossible to believe that a young person can distinguish between new information and pre-existing knowledge in a class at school?
"Maybe people who invariably tell the truth tend to believe that others tell the truth too, and vice versa, of course."
ReplyDeleteWhat a sanctimonious person you are, anonymous Y. When somebody called anonymous X stated confidently earlier today;
"you wrote a newspaper article about her going to school in this country and taking her GCSE's."
I suppose that by your harsh and inflexible standards I should denounce her for being a liar! Instead, I assume that she has got a bit muddled up. I automatically assume that if somebody does not tell the truth it is usually because they are mixed up, forgetful and so on. My first instinct is not to stand up like John Knox and deliver a sermon about lying. Try having a little more charity and being a little less ready to denounce your fellow men and women.
Simon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Try having a little more charity and being a little less ready to denounce your fellow men and women."
Wise words, Simon, from someone who would do well to follow this advice himself. Your hypocrisy and double standards are breathtaking.
"Your hypocrisy and double standards are breathtaking."
ReplyDeleteExplains a charitable person who wishes to conceal her name!
"I suppose that by your harsh and inflexible standards I should denounce her for being a liar! Instead, I assume that she has got a bit muddled up."
ReplyDeleteOf course not, I would assume the same as you but it's hardly the same. Unless you got muddled up about being a qualified teacher?
"Try having a little more charity and being a little less ready to denounce your fellow men and women."
Unbelievable!
"Try having a little more charity and being a little less ready to denounce your fellow men and women."
ReplyDeleteNow that's irony!
"Now that's irony!"
ReplyDeleteWell spotted, anonymous. I was beginning to think that you were incapable of reading figurative meaning into words and were only able to understand the concrete and literal. Next week we will move on to bathos and sarcasm.
I thought the idea behind this blog was discussion of home education but I seem to have strayed into a English Language lesson! Must be difficult to give up after 11 years.
ReplyDeleteWhoops, sorry, make that 17 years.
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Shortly after this discussion on the comments, somebody posted a link to a GCSE course in Coventry which they thought might be suitable for home educated children;
http://www.covcollege.ac.uk/courses/Pages/Types/Course.aspx?@ID=882
I followed this up, but it is really aimed at overseas students from whom fees may be extracted. The person to whom I spoke at the college was surprised at the idea of a teenager without any experience of previous GCSEs starting the course and did not think it very likely. Back to the drawing board I fancy on this one."
I think you must have spoken to the wrong person Simon. I've just spoken to someone via email who says they have always taken home educated young people who need GCSEs on this course. They suggested that anyone interested in next years courses (the September start course if full) should go along to their open evening in November.
This is quite intriguing. I rang 0800 616202 and spoke to two people. Neither was at all enthusiastic about the idea of having a home educated student and the first thing I was asked was about whether this was for a foreign student. What did you say in your email and more importantly what was the name of the person? I am interested in this although I have an idea that it will not be until September that I can go into it fully; quite a few of their staff are not there at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI enquired on behalf of my Sister and Niece in Warwick as they have been looking into GCSEs. I emailed this address, info@staff.covcollege.ac.uk. Luckily my Niece had settled on correspondence courses already as the Coventry course starting in September is full. However, my sister wondered what the situation is for other home educators in her network.
ReplyDeleteI asked, "Can you just let me know what the entry requirements would be and if you would consider home educators? Are the GCSEs taught from scratch as opposed to the more common re- take courses and would you accept people without GCSE exam experience?"
They replied that they have always taken home-educated young people who need GCSEs on the course and suggested that anyone interested in a place should go to the open evening in November. They also mentioned that careers advice and advice about other suitable courses is available at open evenings.
PS, thanks to whoever posted the Coventry link as there are some home educators in the Coventry area who did not know about the course.
ReplyDelete