Saturday 3 July 2010

Good education

I am a great believer in education. Indeed, it might not unjustly be said that it is by way of being an obsession of mine. For this reason, I am no great fan of many modern schools. This is because they fail to deliver a good education a lot of the time. I'm not much interested in why this should be; however much we tinker with them, the quality of education produced tends to fall far short of what I regard as acceptable. This is of course why I educated my daughter at home. The sort of intensive, one-to-one tuition which can be provided in a relaxed, domestic setting is infinitely more efficient than the conveyer belt, one size fits all, production line which is operating in many comprehensive schools. For this reason, I feel that more should be expected of home educated children than of those stuck in schools. They have more opportunities to learn, fewer distractions, no negative peer pressure; everything is perfectly geared towards a first class education.

When I see a sloppy, half baked, ineffectual education being delivered by a school, it makes me angry. Still, at least they have some excuse for it; conditions are hardly ideal for learning in the average school! When I see or hear about the same sort of thing in home education, I also feel angry. Here, there is no excuse at all; the conditions for a decent education could hardly be better. It is the difference between a large factory turning out a shoddy, mass produced article and a craftsman devoting his life to producing one-off, beautiful works of art. If the craftsman then also turns out something just as shoddy and worthless as the stuff being churned out by the factory; one wonders why he is bothering in the first place. He might just as well let the factories do the job.

The attitude of many home educating parents seems to be rather like skiving factory workers; They wish to do the bare minimum necessary to keep the foreman off their backs. In this case the foreman is their local authority and for many such parents, as long as the local authority is satisfied then so are they. Shocking attitude. They are like the schools who are content to be described as 'satisfactory' in an Ofsted report. For those who are unfamiliar with the jargon, 'satisfactory' in this context actually means 'profoundly unsatisfactory'. So yesterday when somebody quoted me and then added her own comment, it made me think a bit. Here is the comment;

"The majority of home educated children in Britain have been deregistered from school."

In which case they are already 'registered' and therefore fulfilling LEA criteria of 'suitable education'.

See what I mean? As long as the local authority feels that the education is 'suitable', then we can all relax and stop worrying. At least schools have the decency to pretend to be striving for excellence! For many home educators, the sole object of the exercise is to persuade their local authority that they are providing a 'suitable education' for their children. We see this time and again on various Internet lists. The problem is not educating the child, it is getting the local authority off their back. There is no secret about this. Parents ask where they can find details of Key Stage 4 resources, not because they wish to use them for their child's education, but so that they can demonstrate to their local authority that they know about them, thus fobbing them off for a year!

I can imagine no more effective way of educating a child than by allowing her to remain at home and not attend school. It is an absolutely perfect arrangement from an educational perspective. All the talk of 'individualised learning plans' that one hears of in maintained schools can become a reality literally overnight for the home educating family. Somebody commented here yesterday saying;

Why do you think home educating parents should be held to higher standards than schools? It hardly seems fair.

Well it is quite fair. If a child is being 'educated' by complete strangers as one of a group of thirty in an institution, then he is unlikely to receive as good an education as when being taught one-to-one by a loving and concerned relative. Of course the standards should be higher; I would have thought this to be self evident. If parents feel that they can make a better job of their children's education than schools, then they can do so in this country. It's not that hard. I would fight to the death if I thought that this possibility was likely to be curtailed or abolished. If on the other hand they take their children from school and then for whatever motives provide them with a worse education, than this is an appalling state of affairs.

29 comments:

  1. Why are you so angry that other people have different priorities to you? I do want my children to have an excellent education (and I think they have it for all the reasons you give), the problem is it would not appear to be excellent to you because it does not involve dozens of GCSEs (or even any if the child does not want to attain them).

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Why do you think home educating parents should be held to higher standards than schools? It hardly seems fair.

    Well it is quite fair."

    The problem is you are asking them to be held to particular high standards, the same standards that schools aim for. We aimed for a higher standard than schools but we also had different aims so we would have failed by school measures. However, our education has been suitable because it has provided our children with the tools to function and thrive in society and it is excellent because they are very happy, fulfilled people following careers they enjoy and find fulfilling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ""The majority of home educated children in Britain have been deregistered from school."

    In which case they are already 'registered' and therefore fulfilling LEA criteria of 'suitable education'.

    See what I mean? As long as the local authority feels that the education is 'suitable', then we can all relax and stop worrying. At least schools have the decency to pretend to be striving for excellence!"

    Doesn't this assume that LA inspectors are not also striving for excellence? They may even have hopes of achieving it with all the benefits conferred by HE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ""The majority of home educated children in Britain have been deregistered from school."

    In which case they are already 'registered' and therefore fulfilling LEA criteria of 'suitable education'."

    There is no implication here of any 'fobbing off'. It is simple: according to you, the majority of UK HEs are registered with their LEA. Therefore the majority of UK HEs they must be fulfilling their LEA's criteria for a suitable education.

    Simon, it is YOU who has consistently argued for compulsory LEA inspection of HEs! Are you now saying their criteria for 'suitable education' is invalid?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "according to you, the majority of UK HEs are registered with their LEA."

    I have no idea and neither does anybody else, how many home educated children there are in this country. It is therefore impossible to say how many are registered with their local authorities.

    "Simon, it is YOU who has consistently argued for compulsory LEA inspection of HEs! Are you now saying their criteria for 'suitable education' is invalid?"

    Yes, I've been saying this for a while. It is absurd to rely for our definition of what constitutes a suitable education upon a court case from a hundred years ago! We need a modern and up to date definition for the twenty first century, not something cobbled together on the spur of the moment in 1911.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How can a detailed definition of what constitutes a suitable education be suitable for all children? And how long would it last before it needed revision? An education that fits a child for the society in which the will become an adult seems to cover all eventualities. If an adult is fit for society, capable to earning a living, support a family and able of continuing their education for as long as they wish, what more is necessary?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Simon, how would you define suitable education?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I suspect he defines it as an 'individualised learning plans' that is designed and controlled by the parent and OK'ed by the LA. Maybe he needs the pat on the head.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I would fight to the death if I thought that this possibility was likely to be curtailed or abolished."

    But you wanted it curtailed. You wanted to make autonomous education impossible. What is that if not curtailing home education as we know it now?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "How can a detailed definition of what constitutes a suitable education be suitable for all children?"

    I don't think it can. We can all agree though that children should learn to read and write and be able to conduct the four basic arithmetical operations. We can also agree that some knowledge of science and history would be desirable. I was not thinking of a detailed curriculum; more a rough outline which would allow for infinite individual variations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "If an adult is fit for society, capable to earning a living, support a family and able of continuing their education for as long as they wish, what more is necessary? "

    Hideous, utilitarian view of education! In other words, if a factory worker can simply operate a machine and pay his rent, then he has all the education he needs? I have a somewhat broader view of education than this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. " Maybe he needs the pat on the head."

    I love this comment! It adds nothing at all to the debate and is really no more than an insult. Comments like this tell everybody a god deal more about those who make them than they do about my beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They are no new laws being put forward for home education in the house of commoms Webb?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Hideous, utilitarian view of education! In other words, if a factory worker can simply operate a machine and pay his rent, then he has all the education he needs? I have a somewhat broader view of education than this."

    The most imortant phrase in anonymous's comment is the one that you left out: "capable of continuing their education for as long as they wish".

    I still want to know how you would define suitable. Your "rough outline" is all very well, but it's a bit vague. Would you prescribe an age by which they should be reading, writing and performing these mathematical tasks? Would you make any other subjects, apart from science and history, compulsory? Would you accept OU credits or vocational qualifications as a substitute for GCSE's? What sanctions would you impose if a child failed to reach a higher standard than schoolchildren? How would you ascertain that children were reaching your required standards? It would be difficult to do so in the context of an "informal chat" once a year, even worksheets and written work could be forged by parents, and reading would be impossible to assess without actually testing the child. So annual CATs would be the obvious choice for LA's as they are already used in schools.
    Then you would have to think about how to deal with the children whose test results were lower than the school average. School attendance orders? Frequent visits by LA staff who would prescribe a teaching method and check that it was working?

    I am genuinely interested in your answers to these questions. I am trying to get a picture of how HE would look if you were in charge.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Would you accept OU credits or vocational qualifications as a substitute for GCSE's?"

    The education provided is completely independent of any qualifications which are later taken.

    "What sanctions would you impose if a child failed to reach a higher standard than schoolchildren?"

    None whatever.



    "Would you prescribe an age by which they should be reading, writing and performing these mathematical tasks?"

    If a child cannot read by the age of thriteen or fourteen, there is probably something that needs to be investigated. Similarly, a child of that age who cannot jot down some address quickly is probaly going to need some extra help. I have known home educated children of fourteen who could only write in big, scrawly capital letters. I don't find this a brilliant outcome.

    "Then you would have to think about how to deal with the children whose test results were lower than the school average. School attendance orders? Frequent visits by LA staff who would prescribe a teaching method and check that it was working?"

    I cannot see that any of this would be needed. We are talking about encouraging parents to provide and education for their child. The current definition of a suitable education would allow a child growing up in an orthodox home to speak only Yiddish and never even to speak a word of English. This is not a good thing. It would also allow a Roma child to learn about tending horses or working iron without needing to read and write. I don't hink this agood scheme either.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The current definition of a suitable education would allow a child growing up in an orthodox home to speak only Yiddish and never even to speak a word of English. This is not a good thing. It would also allow a Roma child to learn about tending horses or working iron without needing to read and write. I don't hink this agood scheme either."

    Well, not really. The current definition requires a child to be able to function outside the society in which they are raised, if they choose to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Simon wrote,
    "We can all agree though that children should learn to read and write and be able to conduct the four basic arithmetical operations. We can also agree that some knowledge of science and history would be desirable. I was not thinking of a detailed curriculum; more a rough outline which would allow for infinite individual variations."

    You would not allow for the individual variation of learning to read at 14 though, so it's not easy to agree on even the basics.

    "Hideous, utilitarian view of education! In other words, if a factory worker can simply operate a machine and pay his rent, then he has all the education he needs? I have a somewhat broader view of education than this."

    How is it utilitarian if part of the outcome is that they able to continue their education for as long as they wish? If someone is *happy* operating a machine, why would you want to change his life? Presumably he is happy doing this as he has the ability to continue his education, improve himself educationally, and move on. But more to the point, why would you want to spend my tax pounds on changing his life for him when he is perfectly capable of doing it for himself and is more likely to get it right?

    "I love this comment! It adds nothing at all to the debate and is really no more than an insult."

    Not really. I've spoken to home educators who like LA visits because it reassures them that they are getting it right, they say that both they and their children like the praise they receive. Just wondering if you were one of these people. Or do you not think these people exist?

    "I have known home educated children of fourteen who could only write in big, scrawly capital letters. I don't find this a brilliant outcome."

    This is not an outcome - it is a stop on the journey towards the outcome. I know several young adults who would have met this description in their teens whose writing is now fine. Two are at university, another is at college and two are working in roles that require them to write. Why do you think their education should have been changed? How would it have benefited them?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I know several young adults who would have met this description in their teens whose writing is now fine."

    So do I. One has Asperger's Syndrome and problems with fine motor control. At 17 his handwriting is barely legible, but it hasn't stopped him from getting a place at college to do science A levels. Another is severely dyslexic and can hardly write at all, and is doing an engineering apprenticeship.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Should have said that both boys write perfectly well on the computer, the second with the help of a spellchecker.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Two are at university, another is at college and two are working in roles that require them to write. Why do you think their education should have been changed? How would it have benefited them? "

    You are arguing from the particular to the universal. In other words, you are saying these people could not write well and now they can. Others may reamin unable to write fluently and be at a disadvantage as a result. I cannot see any advantage in witholding instruction in this skill.

    "I've spoken to home educators who like LA visits because it reassures them that they are getting it right, they say that both they and their children like the praise they receive. Just wondering if you were one of these people."

    This is very innocent! If I were that keen on people pleasing, why would I not bother about pissing so many people off here? I think that you know very well that I do not need a pat on the head from either a local authority officer or anybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The current definition requires a child to be able to function outside the society in which they are raised, if they choose to do so."

    I think you will find that this is the wording of the judgement which established what constitutes a suitable education;



    "education is ‘suitable’ if it primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole"

    ReplyDelete
  22. But it goes on to say that it should not prevent him from living outside that community.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Simon wrote,
    "You are arguing from the particular to the universal."

    So are you. You think that a few children will not receive a suitable education so all children must have their education tightly controlled. You will effectively make my children's education worse in the vague hope of making someone else's education better (vague because the alternative is a SAO and there are no guarantees with schools, are there?).

    Simon wrote,
    "This is very innocent! If I were that keen on people pleasing, why would I not bother about pissing so many people off here?"

    But people here have no authority over you and you consider most of them to be misguided and mistaken in their choices for their children. Why would you want to please them?

    Simon wrote,
    ""education is ‘suitable’ if it primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole" "

    A clearer interpretation of some terminology used in the 1944 Education Act (replaced by the 1996 Act), was gained in the case of Harrison & Harrison v Stephenson (appeal to Worcester Crown Court 1981). The term 'suitable education' was defined as one which enabled the children ‘to achieve their full potential’, and was such as ‘to prepare the children for life in modern civilised society’. The term 'efficient' was defined as achieving ‘that which it sets out to achieve’.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "You are arguing from the particular to the universal."
    I don't think that's what anonymous was doing. I think s/he was making the point that you can't judge HE by arguing from the universal to the particular, because it is individualised learning. What may be a huge disadvantage for a child at school will not necessarily be so for a HE child, of whatever age.
    What were the outcomes for the 14-year-olds you knew?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "But people here have no authority over you and you consider most of them to be misguided and mistaken in their choices for their children. Why would you want to please them?"

    Precisely the same applied to any local authority officer who visited my house! Very mistaken in their choices for their children; they sent them to school. Also of course had no authority at all over me. Actually, I used to piss them off as well!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Simon wrote,
    "I think you will find that this is the wording of the judgement which established what constitutes a suitable education;

    "education is ‘suitable’ if it primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole""

    The rest of this quote is:

    ...rather than the way of life in the country as whole, as long as it does not foreclose the child's options in later years to adopt some other form of life if he wishes to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Very mistaken in their choices for their children; they sent them to school."

    And you, the all seeing all knowing god of education would know this how? Just because you and a few others think home education is best for your children it does not mean that it is best for all children. How do you know what is best for families you do not know and children you have never met at schools you have never visited?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Knowing of your interest in early reading, I thought you might appreciate this link:

    http://www.youandyourchildshealth.org/youandyourchildshealth/articles/teaching%20our%20children.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. What were the outcomes for the 14-year-olds you knew?

    ReplyDelete