Wednesday 13 October 2010

Green ink

For many years I wrote for Prediction magazine on subjects such as angels, crystal healing, auras, opening the third eye and many other outlandish things. The last time I did anything for them was in the November 2001 issue, when I revealed the surprising fact that far from becoming extinct sixty five million years ago, dinosaurs are still to be found in central Africa! Now anybody who writes this sort of stuff for a magazine like Prediction can hardly complain if he receives some pretty strange letters from readers. I have some of them in front of me now and very interesting they are too. They look a bit weird, some of them written all in green, others alternating green with red and yellow; a few with important passages heavily underlined or in capital letters. It is however not the appearance, but the content which I wish to discuss today.

There are several common features to many of these letters, the great majority of which were sent by unbalanced or disturbed individuals. Firstly, almost without exception these are anxious and angry people. They see dangers to which others are blind and they cannot understand why others do not realise things as clearly as they do themselves. The threats vary; some fear invasion from outer space, while others think that the Jews are taking over the world. (This last puts me in mind of the Vaken site which Dominic Johansson's father is involved with!) Many of them have written to the government to complain and cannot understand why their letters remain unanswered. Almost all of them feel that they are being persecuted in some way or other. People are laughing at them, orthodox science ignores their discoveries and their new theories of relativity or cosmology are being suppressed by the establishment. Quite a few of these letters are absolutely incomprehensible; it is impossible even to guess what the writer means. A few think that the government is trying to poison them with vaccinations, fluoride in the water supply or invisible rays. Although these letters are all written, as far as I know, by people unknown to each other, they are so uncannily similar that one feels that some overarching syndrome must be responsible.

When I mentioned a few days ago that a home educator's blog post had been composed in alternating colours, some jumped to the conclusion that this was a dig at the individual concerned. It was not. If it were a case of the occasional person displaying the same symptoms which I have observed in my correspondents from Prediction, then it would hardly be remarkable. One finds strange people in any group. There is a bit more to it than that though. I belong to quite a few online communities and lists. Some of these are religious groups and others political. It is the same with my wife and daughters; between us we have pretty wide experience of such things. Now one expects the odd strange person in these groups and they are certainly to be found. There is no doubt that there are plenty of cranks on the Internet. In general though, the tone is fairly amiable and tolerant. This is the case whether the group is discussing the real presence of Christ in the communion wafers, art deco glassware, the care of ferrets or the Labour leadership contest. How different, how very different, is the atmosphere on some of the larger Internet lists relating to elective home education!

One notices that many home educators, whether posting on Internet sites, talking to newspaper reporters or making submissions to government enquiries, are enormously fond of spotting sinister conspiracies which are invisible to others. They are also angry and anxious for much of the time about threats to which the average citizen is oblivious. One also finds it pretty obvious that a lot of them have the feeling of being persecuted. It is not uncommon for them to believe that the government wishes to poison their children by means of vaccines. They write to the government regularly and are baffled as to why nobody in orthodox education can see that their methods are so much better than those currently being used. It is not at all infrequent to find that one has no idea at all what they are trying to say.

It was to this general atmosphere that I was alluding when I posted on the topic of the mental health of home educators. I was not suggesting that the great majority of home educating parents are mentally ill, although of course many are a bit strange. I meant to convey the idea that there is fertile ground in this community for mad stories to take root and that many home educators seem ready and willing to believe anything, however bizarre. I think that the presence of what seems to me to be a higher than usual number of unbalanced individuals makes this situation worse. I honestly believe that some of these people are suffering from what used to be called persecution mania. The problem is that because of the feverish ambience which one finds already existing in some groups of home educators, these unfortunate people find a willing audience for their stories of persecution by the government or other agencies. Instead of saying to the person telling these garbled and paranoid tales, 'Come and sit down and have a nice cup of tea; you're not yourself today.', those to whom the mad fantasy has been recounted then begin hyperventilating themselves and rush off to tell their friends and relatives that the sky is falling! They never seem to ask themselves the one question which one should always ask of any rumour; is this true?

I cannot see any sort of remedy for this. The truth of the matter is that an awful lot of home educating parents do feel that they are the targets of government persecution, as well as persecution by many other sinister and shadowy groups. The obvious explanation is never enough, there must always be a conspiracy lurking in the background. Somebody offers to protect their child against the dangers of meningitis and they suspect Big Pharma of wanting to poison their baby. The Department of Education revamps its website and at once the rumour spreads that they are deliberately suppressing the 2007 guidelines for local authorities. This is happening all the time. I no longer write for Prediction and so do not get any letters from the readers of that strange magazine. However, reading the online views and opinions of some home educators more than makes up for this. The problem is of course that I am not the only one who reads these opinions. I shall be posting in a day or two about the number of other people who read the lists avidly and belong to the communities who are not home educators. The effect upon these people when reading some of the nonsense one sees is, unfortunately, to say 'They must be mad!' This is not helpful when trying to persuade the government that home edcucators need to be left alone.

37 comments:

  1. When you write blog posts like this, who on earth is your intended reader?

    I'm trying to understand and not just roll my eyes.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  2. One type of intended reader would be the sort of home educating parent who swallows uncritically every scare story which circulates. For example, a few weeks ago the rumour began that the Metropolitan Police were treating both home education and co-sleeping as indicators of possible abuse. It was not true, but many people began to get up in arms about it before they had even bothered to check out the facts. A similar panic is starting today; of which more later. I am simply suggesting that this particular community is a little too prone to start running round in a panic about things which are really not that menacing!

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, do you think it is that 'uncritical' HEing parent which is your readership here?

    Baffled,
    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am hoping to make people stop and think a little about some of the strange theories which do the rounds. Perhaps to encourage them to say, 'Well before I get angry about this, perhaps I should ask myself whether it is true' Many parents seem ready to believe any story about the DfE or local authorities. I am suggesting that it might be an idea to be a little more sparing on the conspiracy theory front.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well fair enough, but insulting them isn't a great way to get them to listen to you, is it?LOL!

    I'd have thought that the majority of people reading here are doing so from a postion of already being pretty sceptical. Any of the group you say you are writing for, ie naive enough to believe everything they read will be so annoyed by this sort of thing, that they will not be prepared to listen to your argument:

    'A few think that the government is trying to poison them with vaccinations, fluoride in the water supply or invisible rays.'

    What I am saying is that posts like this, far from being well-intentioned, informative or prompting of reasonable, interesting discussion, are probably little more than angry tirades.

    You are quite entitled to the kinds of tirades so often seen on other HE blogs, of course, as much as you are entitled to gossip and spread unfounded rumours, but if you want the blog to be taken seriously as an place for informed, intelligent discussion ('academic', even), perhaps you should resist the temptation to rant, insulting the HE community en masse. (Except the 7 families you know, who presumably don't have internet?)

    I usually enjoy coming here and reading an interesting point of view not normally (allowed to be) heard elsewhere in the internet and the reactions to it, but on days when you've decided to rant against the HE community, trash individuals, write gossip with no factual information or write posts like 'Home Educators? They must be mad!' or whatever it was the other day....well, then, not so much.

    Just offering an opinion.
    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'They must be mad!'

    This is a direct quotation which I have heard different people say about some of the stuff which goes the rounds on the HE lists. I shall be saying more about this tomorrow, but it is enough for now to say that none of the lists are really private and that when one sees some of the stranger notions floating round, it is worth bearing in mind the impression that this might make upon local authority officers or civil servants from the DfE. This is really none of my affair, as I will be the first to concede, but it might affect how home edcuators are viewed by others.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that the internet has been a wonderful thing for people who are interested in conspiracies. I have found that my ex-history teacher, who (some 25 years ago) had a fascination with the assassination of Kennedy, is still fascinated and posts a lot on the internet about it. I don't imagine that he talks about it all the time in his everyday life - it's just the internet is where he will find others who are similarly interested.

    I suspect that the same is true of home educators. The internet is where people can talk about these things with others who are equally interested. I wouldn't assume that it tells anyone a huge amount about those people. I suppose it does look a little intense to outside eyes but I think that most people have realied that the internet brings out particular behaviours in people that don't always reflect how they behave in the rest of their lives. I've always liked to think that that might be the case with some of your more 'intense' writing here...

    ReplyDelete
  8. ' I've always liked to think that that might be the case with some of your more 'intense' writing here...'

    As opposed to what, Allie? that in my private capacity I really am the swivel-eyed loonie that I present as here?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "There are several common features to many of these letters, the great majority of which were sent by unbalanced or disturbed individuals."

    Who you were happy to exploit?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Who you were happy to exploit?'

    Puzzled by this! I gave no details to identify any of the letter writers. How was I exploiting them?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Selling them crank magazine articles.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'Selling them crank magazine articles.'

    I hope you're not suggesting that astrology and crystal healing are crank subjects? I'm not at all sure that everybody would agree with you there. If people wish to read about these things, others furnish them with information. I dare say that some of my readers were perfectly sane and normal. Well, there must have been at least one or two. I take it that you do not yourself read Prediction?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I hope you're not suggesting that astrology and crystal healing are crank subjects?"

    Hi Simon,
    Are you suggesting that they aren't?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'Hi Simon,
    Are you suggesting that they aren't? '

    Why, I think that one should, whenever possible, keep an open mind. However, it is not necessary to belive implicitly in something in order to write an informative article about it!

    ReplyDelete
  15. So your willing to keep an open mind about astrology and crystal healing but not autonomous education? Does this mean that you don't implicitly believe what you've written about autonomous education? Can we believe you believe anything you've written?

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'So your willing'

    or even,

    So you're willing

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'So your willing to keep an open mind about astrology and crystal healing but not autonomous education? '

    I am waiting for properly conducted research on all three. When analysis of such data is published in peer reviewed journals then I will look at it and then see what I think.

    ReplyDelete
  18. LOL - like the properly conducted research you carried out in order to produce your 'academic' book aimed at professionals?

    Since there is no research that provides the information your publishers claim is in your book you must have carried out your own research, which presumably was properly conduced and will be peer reviewed. Either that, or your book is just a bunch of your biased opinions dressed up as fact and not academic at all. Which is it Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I am waiting for properly conducted research on all three. When analysis of such data is published in peer reviewed journals then I will look at it and then see what I think."

    But you haven't waited to see have you? You have repeatedly condemned autonomous education as causing harm to children. How does this qualify as keeping an open mind? At least there is some evidence that AE does work (because small studies have been carried out in the UK as well as studies into the equivalent in the US as well as various schools run along similar lines) which is more than can be said for astrology and crystals. Yet you manage to keep an open mind about them and even write/support positive articles about them despite a lack of evidence either way. Strange.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 'Yet you manage to keep an open mind about them and even write/support positive articles about them despite a lack of evidence either way. Strange.'

    It is perfectly possible to write an articel about astrology without endorsing it. One qualifies what is said by prefacing it with statements such as, 'It is widely believed...' or 'Many people think...' I used to present the evidence for both sides and then leave the reader to decide. Maybe I'll scan in some old copies of prediction some time to show what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'Either that, or your book is just a bunch of your biased opinions dressed up as fact and not academic at all. Which is it Simon?'

    One presents the research, such as it is in certain cases and deplores the lack of reliable data. otherwise, nobody would ever be able to write about topics of this sort at all!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Maybe I'll scan in some old copies of prediction some time to show what I mean."

    Why would I be interested in seeing old articles about astrology and crystals? I'm perfectly aware of what 'an open mind' is when I see it in an article. Which is why I want to know how you can claim to be keeping an open mind about autonomous education whilst repeatedly claiming that autonomous education is causing harm to children?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'know how you can claim to be keeping an open mind about autonomous education'

    Essential to distinguish between an open mind and an empty head, Anonymous. One would not wish to be so open minded that one's brains fell out!

    ReplyDelete
  24. "One presents the research, such as it is in certain cases and deplores the lack of reliable data. otherwise, nobody would ever be able to write about topics of this sort at all!"

    Seems a bit pointless to write a book about a lack of information, especially when the publishers say the opposite. How can they claim your book provides a 'comprehensive and factual overview' whilst you claim there is a sever lack of information about HE? Mental! You ask how anyone would ever be able to write about a topic of this. I would suggest they would typically do some research of their own for a start.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'I would suggest they would typically do some research of their own for a start.'

    A fairly good point, except that nobody has yet devised a way even of counting the number of home educated children in the country. These sorts of difficulties are examined critically in the book. Nobody is however obliged to buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. How would that stop you researching other aspects that your publishers claim are covered in the book, such as the reasons people choose to HE or what type of conflict different home educators have. You could have contacted all LAs and asked them to forward a questionnaire to home educators you could have sent questionnaires to LAs, you could have sent questionnaires out via membership organisations, etc...

    How did you find out why people choose to HE and what conflicts they have with LAs?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Essential to distinguish between an open mind and an empty head, Anonymous. One would not wish to be so open minded that one's brains fell out! "

    But, for want of research disproving it, (which actually I think you could find if you looked), you are prepared for the possibility of taking crystal healing seriously? Seems as if emergency cranial surgery is called for, Simon :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Fact is, autonomous education works. Almost all successful education is in fact autonomous education, whether it takes place in schools, in the home, is largely structured or unstructured. If properly understood, ie: that AE is simply about active theories happening in the head, as opposed to being forced to enact a theory that is not active, the statement is so uncontentious - it doesn't need researching, and anyway couldn't be done so on any sort of scientific footing, given the unfalsifiable nature of the hypotheses.

    Contentions are more likely to arise in the field of what it means to respect the autonomous learning process of the individual. Just how does one actually go about enabling autonomous learning? I guess this is the interesting point, but again not possible to subject to scientific study.

    In the absense of such evidence, what does one do? I have looked at the children who have AEd before us and who are leading happy, successful lives, I compare that to other children who were coerced, and that outcome is good enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 'Fact is, autonomous education works.'

    Reference needed here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 'You could have contacted all LAs and asked them to forward a questionnaire to home educators you could have sent questionnaires to LAs, you could have sent questionnaires out via membership organisations, etc...'

    The truth is, you have not the least idea about this book. I have no objection to your guessing about it, but I'm afraid that a lot of what you are saying is wide of the mark. The response rate for questionaires distributed via HE organisations is typically 20% This self selected sample is useless when drawing general conclusions. The rate from these things sent to local authorities is even lower. Why not simply wait until the book is published and then not buy it?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Fact is, autonomous education works.'

    Reference needed here.

    Why? If you see the traffic lights are red, amber, green, do you need a reference for this before you can accept that it is the case?

    If you look in the right places, ie: where autonomous ed really happens, you will see it working for yourself. You will see that children thrive and thrive with a clarity of purpose and a satisfactory relation to the truth and logic.

    Plus, the epistemic argument for AE is pretty watertight surely? Given the explanation for AE, it would be hard to see how it wouldn't work!

    ReplyDelete
  32. The epistemic argument for things like the Initial Teaching Alphabet were solid enough. The only problem being that it did not work very well with real children in real schools. The fact that autonomous education can work with some children, in some homes, under some conditions is true. Without knowing a good deal more about the homes, parents and conditions, I should be reluctant to recommend its wholesale adoption. More research needed and caution about arguing from the particular to the universal.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Who is recommending its wholesale adoption? We just want to be able to continue with autonomous education because we can see that it is best for our children. We have found it to be the most suitable form of education for us as a family and them as individuals. I have no desire to tell you how it is best for Simone to learn so I'm not sure why you have such an interest in how my children are learning.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I learned to read using the ITA. I was one of the lucky ones, probably due in part to the fact that my mother took the time to work with me on my reading outside of school hours and I went through the school's ITA reading course in double-quick time, and progressed to the standard alphabet before the ITA sunk in too far. A large number of children didn't, and have all sorts of problems with spelling, even forty years later. I don't know if I would have been one of them or whether good spelling (sadly not always matched by my typing) would have attached itself to me even if I had spent a year or so using ITA.

    As for AE, horses for courses. It isn't suitable for all children, some do need a lot more structure in their lives, but when used appropriately it is very good.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "The epistemic argument for things like the Initial Teaching Alphabet were solid enough."

    Is it though? A standard rule of thumb as far as critiquing a theory goes, in my book anyhoo, is that a theory sounds sensible, but that it checks out in reality: fits the data, actually works and is consistent with other good theories.

    AE theory ticks all these boxes. ITA doesn't.

    "The fact that autonomous education can work with some children, in some homes, under some conditions is true."

    The fact is that autonomous education, as properly defined, ie: that a person is enacting the theory that is active in the mind, is actually the ONLY form of successful education anywhere.

    What I think is under contention is how one enables autonomous education. There is pretty universal agreement in the AE community that parents must be on hand to facilitate it if necessary. Neglect is not a synonym for AE and parents will almost certainly be required to offer their best theories to children, in order that the child not become enmired in self-coercion.

    The line has to be drawn though between parent offering tentative theories, being prepared to move, change his preferences, seeking common preferences, having no confirmed, pre-determined outcome, and the parent who subtly forces child to do his bidding through the apparent offer of theories which in fact are not offered but forced, who has a pre-determined outcome in mind, who doesn't actually allow the child to critique the theories on offer, who molds the child by slow degrees of subtle coercion. This is not AE, but a slow absconding with the being of another person.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The line has to be drawn though between parent offering tentative theories, being prepared to move, change his preferences, seeking common preferences, having no confirmed, pre-determined outcome, and the parent who subtly forces child to do his bidding through the apparent offer of theories which in fact are not offered but forced, who has a pre-determined outcome in mind, who doesn't actually allow the child to critique the theories on offer, who molds the child by slow degrees of subtle coercion. This is not AE, but a slow absconding with the being of another person."

    A very good point and it can be difficult to judge. My children quite often put me in my place if I push a suggestion and seem perfectly happy to say they don't want to do something or pursue an interest further so I hope this is a good indication that we have the right balance!

    ReplyDelete
  37. I reckon you're right Anon!

    ReplyDelete