I didn't really make myself clear in yesterday's piece. It's not the first time and I doubt if it will be the last! Let me try to put the thesis in another way. I believe that a lot of this fancy talk about children being given choices about their education is at best misleading and at worst downright deceptive and dangerous. It is all the more dangerous for all parties because the parents genuinely don't see how they are making the choices for the children years in advance. They honestly don't realise that they are setting out a curriculum for their children and moulding their education even before they are born.
I have been accused in the past of thinking that only university is the ultimate aim of home education and that everything else is second best. This is not true of course, although I certainly do not think it right to discourage children from getting into higher education if that is what they want to do. I believe that they should be encouraged to consider this as an option. Here is a simple question. What is the most reliable indicator when a baby is born of whether that baby will grow up and go to university when she is old enough? Is it parental income? The district which the child is born in? The educational attainment of her parents? It is in fact none of these things. A huge survey in both America and China earlier this year conformed what I had long suspected. The single most significant factor in whether a child goes to university is how many books there are in her home. Growing up in a home with five hundred or more books is the clincher. A dustman's daughter growing up surrounded by hundreds of books is far more likely to go to university than the child of rich and well educated parents who have no books. It is as simple as that. Lots of books are the key.
Straight away, we see that those parents who decide that the Internet is the key to the acquisition of knowledge have handicapped their child's future prospects. Such a decision is seldom, if ever, made for financial reasons. A few hundred tatty and dog eared books from charity shops can be acquired for less than the price of a forty eight inch plasma television and a stack of DVDs. In fact those who choose to rely upon modern technology for their children have already chosen to sabotage their children's education and discourage them from attending university.
The point is that when home educating parents talk of allowing their children to make choices, they rather imply that these choices are being made freely in a neutral environment. This is of course not so. It is like a conjuror saying, 'pick any card at all'. You know that this is a forced choice and so are the 'choices' made by children about their education. Now I am quite honest about this. I deliberately set about creating an environment which would get my daughter to make the choices about education which seemed wise to me. However, I am not alone in this. All home educating parents, however autonomous, do exactly the same thing. Did you have a television in your home when the baby was born? That is a choice made by an adult which has profound implications for a baby and small child. Do you choose to allow unrestricted watching of a television? This is another choice which has great effects upon a growing child. Have you got a stack of attractive looking children's DVDs? This is another choice which you are making which will affect your child's future. What about having over five hundred books in the house? This is absolutely crucial. Decide against this and you are really discouraging your child from entering higher education in later life. Internet access? Another decision on behalf of the child.
These adult choices create the environment in which a baby will grow up. the baby has not had any say at all in this; the adults have set up the initial conditions which will shape her mind in the future. There is no such thing as a neutral home background. The way that we arrange the home to begin with will decide largely how the child views reading and education as an adolescent. If we decide that the Internet is the most important way of getting access to information and don't bother too much with books, then this is harming the chances of the child attending university in later years. It is these choices, often made by parents years before the birth of their children, which are the real and hidden curriculum which determines the child's academic attainment in later life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I read
ReplyDeletehttp://www.livescience.com/culture/books-education-children-100521.html
was that the number of books was a predictor of length of time in education, not of attendance at university.
Just because number of books is correlated with length of time in education, doesn't mean the number of books is what causes the length of time spent in education. Parents with a strong interest in learning, whatever their own educational qualifications, are more likely to acquire a lot of books and to prioritise their children's education.
Anyone fancy putting on a stats workshop?
I love books, so please don't think this is anti-book propaganga - but the world is changing so very fast when it comes to how information is shared. Presumably that survey looked at the outcomes for people born at least twenty years ago?
ReplyDeleteI do understand what you're saying - hidden curriculum and all that - but I also think that the internet is profoundly important. It simply isn't possible to have the same control over what your children learn if they have access to the internet. I'm not saying that the internet will necessarily provide someone with an excellent education - but that you can't yet know the impact of access to the internet on education. To give you an example - my daughter reads quite a lot of articles in broadsheets and magazines (on the internet) that are posted by her friends on social networking sites. She would probably never have looked at half of those if she hadn't made certain internet friends through the course of the last election.
Where I possibly do agree more with what you say is that I suspect that very young children do pick up an idea of what is 'normal' when it comes to seeking information - and that does influence their attitudes to learning. If their parents/carers give the impression that there is nothing useful to be gained from books then I guess that will have a pretty profound effect. I overheard a guy in a bookshop the other day - pushing a buggy with a toddler in it - holding forth about how he couldn't imagine why anyone would want a book as a present...
2000+ books here. Four grown up previously home educated children. No university education. (No unemployment either. And no debt.)
ReplyDeletemoney buys first class education and gets child to top university or into the city that is why the rich buy first rate education let the poor think a couple of books will help them!
ReplyDelete'It simply isn't possible to have the same control over what your children learn if they have access to the internet.'
ReplyDeleteTrue, but it is possible to control whether you have Internet access at home. A child who is restricted to using the Internet at the local library once or twice a week will be in a different position from one who has the thing on tap at home. Again, this is a decision made on the child's behalf and can have a serious effect upon the child's development and attitude to education. Having Internet access is not a default setting, any more than is owning a television. these things are parental choices.
Suzyg, I am aware that the correlation was with the number of years spent in education and not actually university as such. the reason that I adapted this to the British situation is that the figures used do not make sense otherwise. Consider this quoatation from the original data;
ReplyDelete' For instance, a child born into a family that had only 1 book but was otherwise average in parents' education, father's occupation, GDP, and similar variables, would expect to get 9.4 years of education themselves.'
Obviously, this would not be possible in this country, where every child must receive eleven years of education by law. the easiest comparison would be to equate this with entry to higher education. I am also aware that the books do not directly 'cause' the entry to the university! I am hardly likely to fall into the post hoch, ergo propter hoc fallacy and need no instruction in statistics.
The point which I am trying to drive home here is that the environment which we engineer for our children actually restricts or widens their choices. They do not make choices about education in a vacuum but in the context of their home background. We arrange the home background and therefore decide to a large extent what choices will be available for the children. We also rig their choices so that they will choose what we wish them to choose. The very decision to have a television in the home inclines them towards certain activities. a home full of books without any computer screens will incline them in another direction. Parents may well allow their children free choices, but only among the options which they have already decided as being good for their children. The autonomoy of the children is therefore only made within the boundaries which the parents have chosen for them. This is the same in any home, whether a highly structured one or one claiming to be an autonomously educating family.
ReplyDelete"The point which I am trying to drive home here is that the environment which we engineer for our children actually restricts or widens their choices."
ReplyDeleteI would think this is obvious to anyone interested enough in education to educate their child at home. Certainly this is the case with all of the HE parents I know in person.
"Parents may well allow their children free choices, but only among the options which they have already decided as being good for their children...This is the same in any home, whether a highly structured one or one claiming to be an autonomously educating family."
The point is that autonomous educators (and I'm sure other parents) are aware of this and make every attempt to widen their child's choices as much as they are able. Making the internet available is one example of how they might do this along going on trips organised by other parents with different interests, mixing with a wide range of children with different interests including visits and sleepovers without parents, freedom to roam in museums and libraries, etc. In these situations, how would you expect parents to limit the child's options to those pre-selected by the parent?
'In these situations, how would you expect parents to limit the child's options to those pre-selected by the parent? '
ReplyDeleteBy either having Internet access in the home or not having it; by choosing to own a television or not having one in the house; by filling the house with books or focusing upon electronic media for information; by making the decision to allow their children to see them watching television or not doing so until they were in bed; by reading books for pleasure in front of them or limiting their reading to functional purposes; by joining organisations or not joining them; by arranging playdates and sleepovers or not arranging them.
But once again, Simon, you characterise the child as some sort of passive being that does nothing but respond to parental choices. The framework that we (as parents) might set out to provide for a child can be hugely changed by that very child. Because parents and children can learn from each other. Because we are not setting out to dominate our children but to nurture them.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course we present our children with a certain world - anything else would be impossible. Those worlds will reflect our values - once again it's impossible for that not to be the case. Surely that is undeniable? I've certainly never met a parent (autonomous home edder or otherwise) who disputed that. But children can change us. I know my children have changed me.
The thing that I think you miss here, is that 'we all get this'.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if this is a new and dawning epiphany for you?
And with this being the case, can we dare hope that it will affect the way you view education?
See, the thing is Simon, that most autonomous parents I know are quite aware of this.
And find that often part of the freedom of choice they allow, is letting go when children DO want to participate in more conventional forms of education. They turn on their heels and do all they can to then create THAT environment for them.
Many autonomously educated children do go on to some kind of formal learning (certainly the ones I know). And their parents have worked hard to prepare them for this.
They are unfortunately in the 'end' quite narrowed by the society in which they live. While this is the case, even in that narrowing, they are deeply enriched because they have spent years questioning, exploring, arguing, fighting (ie swimming up stream), playing, creating, flourishing, learning, whatever is within their grasp (and without of it) to do so.
The ones I feel the most saddened for, are those who are told there is one way to learn. That in order to be a happy and educated adult you MUST learn a particular way, you must talk a particular way and have particular qualifications. They have never had the freedom to question, or to think outside of any square, except those they have been given permission to do so (by the very environment created for them).
To me, it is a great injustice to the child to think that formal education is the only way to learn, and environments constructed to this end are more highly desired.
This really comes down to value.
You place value on formal qualifications.
You place value on formal methods of learning.
You place value on government dictated time lines and schemata's for when things SHOULD happen.
Therefore when you look at the world, the only things you can value are those you approve of.
Autonomous 'people' get that there is value in many things, and that often part of being autonomous is allowing children the freedom to do things (ie perhaps formal learning), even when as a parent you feel there are more wonderful paths to take that will achieve the same goal given time.
So while I would love to think there was an epiphany in your bedroom as you awoke this morning, I can't help feeling that this is another back handed swipe at anyone whose educational philosophies you determine to be without value.
'You place value on formal qualifications.
ReplyDeleteYou place value on formal methods of learning.
You place value on government dictated time lines and schemata's for when things SHOULD happen.'
As soon as people start using 'you' like this in a debate on childrearing, I assume that their arguments are too weak to be considered on their own merits. Such is certainly the case here. What on earth are these 'government dictated timelines and schemata's' to which I apparently subscribe? Is this a coded reference to the National Curriculum? I never even glanced at the thing while home educating. (At risk of laying myself open to a charge of pedantry, 'schemata' is already a plural; it needs no additional 's', let alone an apostrophe. The Lord only knows what that is doing there! One schema, two schemata. I could have overlooked a plural 's' alone, but the needless addition of an apostrophe occasions an almost physical pain!)
The idea that when I look at the world, the only things I can value are those of which I approve may or may not be true; it is though wholly irrelevant to the subject which I was discussing. I was talking about a general state of affairs, not setting out a recommended course of action.
You say that 'we all get this'. I am pleased although more than a little surprised to hear this. Most people, whether home educators or otherwise have a television in their homes as a matter of routine, without considering the benefits to their child. You are apparently saying that autonomous home educators are not like this and that some of them choose to have televisions while others do not. I was not aware of this. Most people regard Internet access as almost by definition a good thing and a valuable resource for children. Again, since 'we all get this', I am assuming that this is not the case with autonomous home educators and that they carefully weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of having computers at home. This is unusual; most people take them for granted these days. Could you let me know a little more about this and perhaps give me the source of your information?
3rd attempt...
ReplyDeleteSorry if this appears twice, my first attempt disappeared.
"As soon as people start using 'you' like this in a debate on childrearing, I assume that their arguments are too weak to be considered on their own merits."
I feel much the same when people start passing comments about grammar. I suppose you would use a red pen if you could.
I think anonymous meant that you go along with the accepted view within the general population and government that qualifications, specifically GCSEs by age 16, are essential and the best route for any child's future and the best way to achive this is through teacher/parent directed teaching. I don't think anonymous meant the NC in particular though this is currently the route chosen by the government to achieve the aims of both yourself and the state. Hopefully anonymous will answer for themselves if I've misunderstood.
"You say that 'we all get this'. I am pleased although more than a little surprised to hear this."
ReplyDeleteWhen anonymous said this I thought they meant that the subject of your post, that parents control what is available to their children, is not a revelation to most parents as you appear to think. Most parents are aware of this and autonomously educating parents (and I've no doubt others) work hard to minimise this effect by making as much information from a wide number of resources available to their children. I would certainly not rely on one source of information for my children and that includes 'just' books as well as 'just' the internet. Relying on either option by itself or even just the two would be a serious mistake in my view. Do you know any parents that rely soley on the internet? Or is this another straw man argument?
'You are apparently saying that autonomous home educators are not like this and that some of them choose to have televisions while others do not. I was not aware of this.'
ReplyDeleteWeren't you? I know quite a few people, some home educators and some not, who choose not to have televisions. Some have them but only use them for watching DVD's. We didn't have one for several years. I'm very surprised that you weren't aware of this.
'I am assuming that this is not the case with autonomous home educators and that they carefully weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of having computers at home.'
Yes, that's right. Some people still don't have them at home. It's very easy to get internet access at libraries these days, you know. We didn't need a computer at home when my children were younger because we had an excellent facility, with free internet access for children, just down the road. My children used to meet up with some of their friends there after school.
"A dustman's daughter growing up surrounded by hundreds of books is far more likely to go to university than the child aof rich and well educated parents who have no books. It is as simple as that. Lots of books are the key."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not that simple. It's not the books themselves that makes the difference. The writers of the study used the number of books as a measure of the parents’ scholarly culture. Having a roomful of books will make no difference if this 'scholarly culture' is missing. They conclude:
In short, families matter not just for the material resources they provide, not just because of parents’ formal educational skills, but also – often more importantly – because of the scholarly culture they embody.
"You say that 'we all get this'. I am pleased although more than a little surprised to hear this."
ReplyDeleteDid you think that autonomous home educators were unaware that they were in control of their children's environment? How extraordinary. Total autonomy is a nice idea, but not very realistic, even for adults. We are all at the mercy of our environment and our circumstances. Children who go to school, or who follow a curriculum at home, are particularly constrained by the choices of their educators. Autonomous children have much more choice, because the job of the autonomously educating parent is to make as many opportunities and resources available as possible; but of course unlimited choice is still not possible. Very few people have unlimited money, for one thing. However, when you live in a friendly and supportive community, and you have no preconceptions about what your children should be learning at any particular time, it is amazing how many exciting opportunities are available.
'I feel much the same when people start passing comments about grammar. I suppose you would use a red pen if you could.'
ReplyDeleteThis is not really about grammar at all. The reason that I draw attention to these things is that often using grand words and obscure foreign-sounding expressions is a deliberate attempt to make simple ideas sound more complicated than is really the case. This is always suspicious! Why would anybody make things complicated rather than more simple? The obvious answer is that when viewed in a simple form, the arguments used do not stand up. It is for this reason that I object to using words like schemata rather than a simpler espression. When the word is further disfigured by the addition of an 's' and a greengrocer's apostrophe; then I feel that it is really time to speak out!
' Do you know any parents that rely soley on the internet? Or is this another straw man argument?'
ReplyDeleteI cannot imagine that this is a real question? I often visit homes containing children where there are no books at all. Stacks of DVDs, cable television, Internet access, but not a single book. Ths is an increasing trend, even with schools. Children are often told at school to research things on the Net for homework, without the alternative being mentioned of looking for a book in the library. So yes, many children are wholly reliant upon the Internet for information. Are you claiming that this is not the case in some home educating families also?
'Having a roomful of books will make no difference if this 'scholarly culture' is missing.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I rather assumed that readers would understand this to be implied. I was certainly not suggesting that ordering five hundred books from Amazon and sticking them around the house would increases a child's chance of going into higher education! I don't think that anybody acquires five hundred books without the approapriate 'scholarly' atmosphere to go with them. Readers may be surprised to learn that a 'scholarly' culture may be as readily found in the home of a dustman as anywhere else!
' I don't think anonymous meant the NC in particular though this is currently the route chosen by the government to achieve the aims of both yourself and the state.'
ReplyDeleteThis is of course quite untrue! I am not a fan of the national Curriculum, dis not use it and don't believe that it is used in its current form by any home educator. Without knowing a little more about my aims, it is rather presumptous of you to suggest that the government could use the NC to achieve them!
"I cannot imagine that this is a real question? I often visit homes containing children where there are no books at all. Stacks of DVDs, cable television, Internet access, but not a single book."
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about home educating households and also other sources of information alongside the internet so you have answered the question. Your suggestion that some parents think that the internet is the key to the acquisition of knowledge is a straw man argument as even in your example you list two other sources of information. Do you think it would be impossible to provide the 'scholarly culture' that the researchers believe makes the difference in any other way than with hundreds of books in the modern world (after the period covered by the study)? We happen to have 100s of books, but at least as much if not more of our scholarly activities make use of the internet rather than books.
"So yes, many children are wholly reliant upon the Internet for information. Are you claiming that this is not the case in some home educating families also?"
I'm sure it's possible, though I've not met any, all of the HE homes I've visited have lots of books, but the question remains. Do you really think a scholarly culture is impossible without physical books, especially when you consider that books are available on the internet/computer? Some OU courses are entirely computer based. Are you suggesting that they are not scholarly?
"This is of course quite untrue! I am not a fan of the national Curriculum, dis not use it and don't believe that it is used in its current form by any home educator. Without knowing a little more about my aims, it is rather presumptous of you to suggest that the government could use the NC to achieve them! "
ReplyDeleteI didn't suggest you were a fan of the NC, are you being purposely obtuse? From you writings it appears your aim was to provide your daughter with an excellent education and your vision included lots of GCSEs. This is also the aim of the government and they aim to achieve this through the NC.
'Do you really think a scholarly culture is impossible without physical books?'
ReplyDeleteI certainly find it impossible to conceive of a home without any books which has a scholarly atmosphere! Mind you, I seem to recollect your saying once that you could not imagine why a five year old child would need to be able to read, and so your own attitude to reading and books is somewhat ambivalent. In view of your background and own experience of reading, I can readily understand why you would feel this way and place shiny, electronic media on an equal footing with books.
"Mind you, I seem to recollect your saying once that you could not imagine why a five year old child would need to be able to read, and so your own attitude to reading and books is somewhat ambivalent."
ReplyDeleteI think you are mixing me up with someone else. I can see that an individual five year old might not need to be able to read (they can have thing read for them or they may be busy learning in more practical, hands on ways), but I'm sure others will feel the need to read much earlier (my daughter learnt autonomously at 3, for instance). Every child is different.
"In view of your background and own experience of reading, I can readily understand why you would feel this way and place shiny, electronic media on an equal footing with books."
I don't remember learning to read so I assume it was fairly early and without problems and I love books. If I have the choice between reading a text on the computer screen or from a physical book I would choose the book every time. However, in some instances I find having a book on a computer very useful. The ability to search for terms is invaluable for study, for instance.
Hi Simon,
ReplyDeleteApologies, I haven't read all of the comments, but just wanted to make quite certain that you have understood what actual real-life, proper, full-blown autonomous educators mean about when they talk about choice and their children. Allie, I think, did explain this, but am not sure you grokked it.
You wrote:
"Parents may well allow their children free choices, but only among the options which they have already decided as being good for their children...This is the same in any home, whether a highly structured one or one claiming to be an autonomously educating family."
You are completely wrong in this regard. There are no choices in the autonomously educating household which are de facto ruled out or are solely taken by the adults. Autonomously educating parents realise that children may have vastly different priorities and needs to themselves, they do not assume that they know best, and it up to the child to make choices about how they live their lives.
Of course a child is born into a certain environment, but this is neither one that is set in stone, nor over which a child has no control. This is the case right from the off. For example, many an autonomously educating parent has brought a buggy in which they fondly imagine they will transport their first-born. Infant rapidly makes it plain that buggy rides are the very last thing he fancies, screaming very loudly whenever he is placed in it. Parent does a bit of research and buys a sling instead. Happy baby, happy parent.
Consensual choices continue to be made through the preverbal and verbal stages of a child's life, with parent and child actively seeking creative new solutions together in the cause of common preferences.
"By either having Internet access in the home or not having it;"...etc.
If the parent decided to force the child either to have or not to have the internet against their will, then this would not be an autonomously educating household. Ditto TV, books and electronic media.
This process of exploring choices which are not initiated by the parent can take a family in any number of unforeseen directions.
You may be surprised to hear that many children who were raised this way have now reached successful, responsible adulthood. They decided for themselves from a very young age, that they agreed with mum and dad, didn't want to run under a bus, would like free access to the internet, are capable of handling apparently dubious information with far greater skill than most adults give children credit for, etc, etc.
'If the parent decided to force the child either to have or not to have the internet against their will, then this would not be an autonomously educating household. Ditto TV, books and electronic media.'
ReplyDeleteBabies are born into an environment over which they have no control at all. Some babies are born into a home where the television is on all the time, others into a home with no television at all. These intitial conditions influence the growing child strongly. Long before she is able to speak or express an opinion, much of the brain's wiring is already in place, predisposing her in a certain direction. By the time that she is able to choose, an awful lot of choices have already been made on her behalf.
"Babies are born into an environment over which they have no control at all. Some babies are born into a home where the television is on all the time, others into a home with no television at all. These intitial conditions influence the growing child strongly."
ReplyDeleteInitial conditions do, of course, affect the choices the infant makes. Principle amongst these conditions seems to be the genetic predisposition of the child.
The autonomy-respecting parent (ARPs) will do their best to pick up on cues that are dictated by the infant.
For example, many ARPs find that TV just isn't on the menu at this stage, either because it is simply irrelevant to the child, or it distracts the parent from the child, and/or the child appears annoyed by the distraction in the background etc, but the family probably do have it in the home anyhow.
The significant difference between an autonomy-respecting parent (ARP) and a coercive parent is that for the former, no choice is de facto unavailable to the child, and the ARP will do their utmost to be sensitive to and to assist the infant in the choices that the child evolves.
Babies in autonomy-respecting households thus have MASSES of control of their environment and this just as often represents a resistance to the environment as much as being directly subtly influenced by it.
I have already given you a specific example of how this is the case. The baby didn't know that slings existed. He was only presented with a buggy. He knew he didn't like it and the parent responded to the child's choice.