Friday 2 July 2010

How I raise and educate my child is my business, not the state's

Many home educating parents, particularly those who do not wish for visits, maintain that the way in which they educate their children and generally raise them is solely the parents' business. They simply cannot understand why the government or local authority should believe that it is also something to do with them and that these agencies might wish to come and make sure that the job is being done properly. Let us see the extent to which the home educators' argument is valid.

If we imagine a couple of people raising their children on a desert island and having no contact with any other human being or being part of any society, then the parents would indeed be solely responsible for their children. The decisions which they made about education would affect nobody else and if they muffed up the whole thing, then they alone would have to live with the consequences. The case is quite different for those living in a developed society, particularly one with a welfare state like that of the United Kingdom. Here, how I raise my child is likely to have many effects on others, some of them catastrophic. Below is an example of what can happen if parents adopt an extreme, 'it's nobody's business but mine' way of child rearing:

http://kccesl.tripod.com/hypertextstudy/humanlanguagespring03.html

This is of course an isolated case. I am not for a moment suggesting that many parents who do not send their kids to school do so because they would keep them locked in a cupboard instead! However, the principle is the same. Let's try and imagine a more likely scenario. Suppose that as a parent I keep my child with me instead of sending her to school. What if I am wholly reliant upon state benefits and teach my child that this is an acceptable lifestyle? Suppose then that she sees no need to work and simply lives off the state for her whole life? This would have a massive impact upon other people, because those working and paying taxes would then have to support my child. Of course it may be argued that this case, like that of Genie which I cited earlier, is unlikely. We are establishing a principle here though.

Now for another hypothetical case. Suppose that I allow my child to grow up to be barely literate. Perhaps I don't arrange for him to take any public examinations and he has little interest in working or taking care of himself. Does this affect other people? Of course it will. He may go on to claim social security payments and then, as before, others who work will be supporting him. What if I don't teach him the value of fresh air and exercise? Suppose he does not learn about vitamins, proteins, fats and carbohydrates? Without regular exercise and a good diet, he will become unhealthy. Who will deal with his health problems? Why the National Health Service of course! Paid for by? Yes, that's right, by taxpayers.

The way that we raise our children and the things which we teach them, or fail to teach them, will have a direct impact upon many other people. To pretend, as some home educating parents do, that it is entirely their own business whether or not they choose to teach their children about human biology, including the importance of diet and exercise in maintaining health, is not a position which can be maintained. I have given a few examples of the way in which how we raise and educate our children will affect many other people; there are many others. What I teach my child about religion and ethics will affect society, as will the attitudes which I teach about race, gender and nationality. If the education I provide results in an ignorant bully or a lazy psychopath, then these too are matters which will affect society. The doctors and hospitals which will treat my child in the future, the social security benefits she claims, the prison in which she may spend time, her attitude as a citizen; all these are heavily affected by the home education whcih she received and in turn have many effects upon others. That being the case, it is quite reasonable for society to take a look at what is going on in this respect, because it is society which will be expected to foot the bill if we as parents screw up on the job. To say that, 'It's nobody else's business!' , is so absurd as hardly to be worth responding to. Of course it is other people's business.

25 comments:

  1. Yes, it is other people's business, but the issue is surely about the extent to which it is other people's business, where the boundaries of responsibility should lie, and what happens when those other people - in the shape of the state - get it wrong.

    Poor education and poor health are complex issues often due to a number of factors, not always failings on anyone's part.

    ReplyDelete
  2. they are no plans by the new government to change the law on home education?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Suzyg has hit the nail on the head. Of course we are responsible for each other in a welfare state, but how far should we go, and what kind of state intervention is appropriate or effective? Clearly state education is not preventing people from eating badly, smoking and drinking. We could save the NHS millions by banning smoking, junk food and alcohol, but we might find that we were spending that money on policing all the new laws that would be necessary, and on prosecuting and punishing those who broke them. It could be that we would create a huge new criminal underclass, a new black market economy, and huge unemployment among those who are currently employed in the tobacco, alcohol and junk food industries.
    We could put children like my child's overweight classmate who started smoking in Year 5 on the At Risk Register, or take them into care, and then we would have to finance that, and deal with the long-term consequences of many more children growing up in care.
    It is, as Suzyg says, a very complex issue.
    Home educated children are a tiny percentage of the population, and most of them do not turn out to be unhealthy, racist, lazy, ignorant criminals. Is it really worth the huge cost of monitoring all of them on the offchance of catching the few who might? Would it even work, or would it be an enormous waste of money and resources which could be put to more effective use elsewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Clearly state education is not preventing people from eating badly, smoking and drinking. "

    I think I've pointed out earlier that the fact that the state education system is in a shocking state and does not do what it should, seems to me to be no reason for not being fairly rigorous about home education. We know that children in state schools are exposed to information about diet and exercise. We also know that they have citizenship classes and various other things. We do not know this about children who are being educated at home.

    "Home educated children are a tiny percentage of the population, and most of them do not turn out to be unhealthy, racist, lazy, ignorant criminals."

    Neither do most pupils who have attended maintained schools. Actually we know almost nothing about the long term outcomes for home educated adults. The evidence has not been collected, but if it turned out that a higher proportion were reliant upon state benefits than in the general population, that in itself would be sufficient reson to be concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Actually we know almost nothing about the long term outcomes for home educated adults. The evidence has not been collected"

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to collect some evidence before trying to take expensive action which may or may not be necessary?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Wouldn't it be a good idea to collect some evidence before trying to take expensive action which may or may not be necessary? "

    Indeed it would. Hands up anybody who remembers what happened when Ofsted tried to do this last year? Or the reaction to the DfCSF announcment of the longitudinal study to track the long term outcomes for home educated children?

    ReplyDelete
  7. dont matter for us Peter will soon be 16! we won! so any new laws wont affect us!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "dont matter for us Peter will soon be 16! we won! so any new laws wont affect us!"

    Yes, this might be one of the differences between us Mr Williams. Although my daughter has turned sixteen, I am still concerned about home education, interested in the practice and wish to help shape its future development.

    ReplyDelete
  9. old Simon says-Although my daughter has turned sixteen, I am still concerned about home education, interested in the practice and wish to help shape its future development.

    your not concerned about home education if you where you listen to what home educated children have to say on the subject! Peter would be very happy to tell you that you got it all wrong! he beat you to get his submission off to select committee Peter was first! and Peter picked the winning side unlike you and your daughter you lost and we won! your a loser Webb

    ReplyDelete
  10. Simon, you seem to have a very simplistic, authoritarian view on life - I suspect your philosophy would be 'it's my way or the highway' if you were in charge. However, all of the policing of the minutia of the nation's family lives that would be necessary to achieve your ideal world would cost more than the countries GDP!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Simon wrote,
    "That being the case, it is quite reasonable for society to take a look at what is going on in this respect, because it is society which will be expected to foot the bill if we as parents screw up on the job. To say that, 'It's nobody else's business!' , is so absurd as hardly to be worth responding to. Of course it is other people's business."

    As in every other area of life that affects society in general any measures should be justified and proportional. You have yet to prove that it is justified, let alone proportionate. Surely it should be possible for the government to discover the proportion of adults in prison and receiving unemployment benefit who were home educated, for instance. If a disproportionate number are costing the state money in this way the costs could be evaluated and a proportionate response planned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Surely it should be possible for the government to discover the proportion of adults in prison and receiving unemployment benefit who were home educated, for instance."

    Of course it is. It would require the addition of one simple question to JSA and IS forms and to the forms that prisoners no doubt have to fill out. It would also be possible to discover in the same way the proportion of adults who have health issues related to obesity, smoking or alcohol who were home educated. Other matters of concern such as racism and sexism would be more difficult to measure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "As in every other area of life that affects society in general any measures should be justified and proportional."

    Let's see what is being proposed here. A complete list of parents who home educate being held by the local authority. Annual visits to have a chat and see how things are going. parents submitting a rough plan of what they hope their children might be doing over the next year. This hardly seems like an oppressive! regime!

    ReplyDelete
  14. You are putting words into my mouth - I didn't mention oppressive regime, though now you mention it... It would prevent autonomous educators continuing with their chosen method (the future plans aspect) so I suppose it is oppress in that respect. Other families do not have their education provision checked so thoroughly. Any parent sending their child to a failing school should have the same checks, for instance, and even good schools may not be suitable for an individual children so a parent could be failing in their duty despite sending them to school. The LA cannot be held legally responsible for an unsuitable education because the parent is still responsible - shouldn't they be held to account in the same ways as HE parents?

    I do think the plans were disproportionate and unjustified. The current system is perfectly adequate (possibly there is some justification for a notification requirement). Keep your hands off my tax pounds! I can think of much more useful and effective uses for my money.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "We know that children in state schools are exposed to information about diet and exercise. We also know that they have citizenship classes and various other things."

    Oh my, yes, a trip down any high street of any UK town on any Saturday afternoon will certainly bare out Simon's point. All those healthy, trim, sober, well-mannered school children. Give me a break...

    Incidentally,here is a recently published Canadian survey, 'Fifteen Years Later: Home-Educated Canadian Adults' available here:

    http://www.hslda.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&Itemid=81

    "The latest research project of CCHE is the study titled: Fifteen Years Later: Home-Educated Canadian Adults. Up until now, little has been known of Canadian adults who were home-educated as students, particularly as they compare to their Canadian adult peers. Following a 1994 study, hundreds of families were followed up with to determine the result of their home education into their adult years.'

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Annual visits to have a chat and see how things are going. parents submitting a rough plan of what they hope their children might be doing over the next year."

    And this is supposed to prevent ill health, illiteracy, ignorance, bullying, laziness, psychopathy, crime, racism, sexism and lack of a work ethic among home educated children? How?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for the link AM, an interesting read.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "All those healthy, trim, sober, well-mannered school children. Give me a break..."

    Why that's right. Schools are not very good places to provide an education; That's why I am in favour of home education. My point was that the schools teach these things and so should home educators. Schools don't make a very good job of a lot of the teaching, but home educators can be better than schools. I am arguing here not in favour of schools as good places to learn, but for home education as a better option. I am also saying that the quality of home education should be high and that way home education will knock school based education into a cocked hat every time.

    I am absolutely baffled as to why anybody should think that I am the least bit in favour of schools. I think home education is much better; that's why I chose that rather than school.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I am also saying that the quality of home education should be high and that way home education will knock school based education into a cocked hat every time."

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

    ReplyDelete
  20. Simon said:
    "Let's see what is being proposed here. A complete list of parents who home educate being held by the local authority. Annual visits to have a chat and see how things are going. parents submitting a rough plan of what they hope their children might be doing over the next year. This hardly seems like an oppressive! regime! "

    The trouble is that based on the behaviour of the previous government, most of us do not believe that this is all that would happen. Observation of state behaviour in similar fields indicates that it would be the thin end of the wedge. It comes down to the simple fact that We Do Not Trust The Government. Home educators have opted out of the state system for a variety of reasons, all simplified to the belief that the parents can do a better job than the state. This is often after giving the state many chances to get it right, so letting them interfere after many failures is always going to be unpopular.

    There are many things that I think government could do to support home education in a way that benefits both the families and the state, but then I look at how such systems get corrupted and used to exert state control that is not to the benefit of the child or the family, and I end up coming back to the opinion that I'd rather do without their support if that's the price to pay to avoid the interference.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Why do you think home educating parents should be held to higher standards than schools?"

    Because schools are, by and large, useless and inefficient and home education is very effective. Of course I would expect a higher standard of education from a home education.

    ReplyDelete
  22. But how is that measured when different families have different aims? Or are we only allowed to have the same educational aims as the state and you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Or are we only allowed to have the same educational aims as the state and you?"

    I suspect that my views are very different from those of the state!

    ReplyDelete
  24. They don't sound it. You seem to define it as at least a handful of GCSEs, much the same definition as the government. True, you think you can do it better than them, but they do have the same aim as you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "True, you think you can do it better than them"

    It is possible that Simone would have done better if she had gone to school. How can you be sure this isn't the case? Maybe she would have been one of those to take OU courses alongside her GCSEs, for instance.

    ReplyDelete