I am still on one or two home education lists and a short while ago an old friend of mine, firebird2110, expressed surprise at this. She gave it as her opinion that since I was no longer a home educator, she could not see why I was on any HE lists at all. This is a fair point. Before I explore it a little, I must mention one thing which puzzles me about the woman who raised this question. She describes herself as a 'wool crafter'. I have racked my brains trying to work out what this might be. I even went to the length of sending her an email asking about this, which she was churlish enough to ignore. My best guess is that this is simply a New Age way of describing somebody whose hobby is knitting. I would be grateful to anybody who can shed light upon this.
The suggestion that I am no longer a home educator is clearly predicated upon the assumption that a genuine home educator is one who has a child aged between five and sixteen who is not a registered pupil at a school. People have in the past said of me, 'It does not matter to him, any new law would not affect him and his child'. It is a very curious thing, but that using this as a definition of a home educator would cut the regular numbers on some of the Internet lists by about half! I am not going to name any names, but a large number of those who post regularly on those places, and here if it comes to that, either have children over the age of sixteen or children under sixteen who are at school. This is the case with some of the most vociferous 'home educators', some of whom have not technically been home educators for years. Others have children who are not yet five, into which category firebird2110 herself fell when first she began posting on the lists.
There does seem to be something about home education which causes people to remain hanging about the scene even when their kids have turned sixteen and gone to college. All of which confirms what I have long known; that home education is about more than just education. If it were just another form of education, then people would drop it as soon as their kids were no longer involved. You would find it a little odd if a parent carried on hanging round the school gates once their child had grown up, but this sort of thing seems to be pretty common with home education. I wonder if anybody can shed any light upon this curious phenomenon? Of course some former home educators see a chance to make a few bob out of the business now that their children are older. We can see that with one or two people who are making a living out training local authorities and of course others writing books about it! Any thoughts about this phenomenon would be good to hear.
I must mention that after Firebird2110 and I had had this little disagreement, another anonymous poster weighed in with a post in which she claimed that I hated women. Her grounds for believing this were that she had noticed that I was more often scathing to women than I am to men. What nonsense! I am rude and unpleasant to everybody in equal measure. The fact is that there are roughly ten times as many female home educators on blogs and lists as there are men. This means that I am horrible to about ten times as many women as I am men; it is a statistical artefact. Unless it was being suggested of course that I should be more polite and deferential to women than I am to men. If so, I cannot really go along with this Victorian view of the proper relations between the sexes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'If it were just another form of education, then people would drop it as soon as their kids were no longer involved.'
ReplyDeleteNot really.
I would like the HE option to still be available for my grandchildren. Wouldn't you? If Simone decided in 10 years time that she'd like to HE her own children, but that due to various legal changes it had become impossible, I'm sure she'd ask you what you had done to ensure it's survival as an option.
Also, I do believe that people who have enjoyed a wonderful relationship with a school can join groups committed to supporting that school (usually in the independent sector). Many will support such schools financially for years after their children have left. Adults will often return to Reunions etc
My husband and I support the College our daughter went to (and has now left) as much as possible, helping to fund their minibus for autistic students, attending fundraisers, writing to our LA and MP in support of it etc. The reason would be the gratitude and affection we feel for the education and care our daughter received there. Why wouldn't it be the same for us and Home Education?
'Wool crafting'. Simon, there are other things you can do with wool besides knit, you know, such as tapestry and rug-making. Probably others, for all I know (weaving?) I'm not a wool person myself.
Have a blessed Sabbath,
Mrs Anon
I'm so embarrassed. I put an apostrophe in 'it's'. Oh, the shame of it.
ReplyDeleteMrs Anon
I've just thought of another reason why people remain interested: to pass on their aquired wisdom.
ReplyDeleteWhen my first child reached about 13, we looked around and found very few other people with children that age and older, locally anyway. I felt I was forging my own path with HE'ing a teenager, hacking through the undergrowth.
A few years later with child number 2 there were more of us. We were acquiring experience and knowledge that it would seem churlish not to pass on. I am extremely grateful for the advice of people on the HEexams list, for eg, from people who have Been There Done That.
(Thanks, Jule!)
Mrs Anon, again.
'I'm so embarrassed. I put an apostrophe in 'it's'. Oh, the shame of it.'
ReplyDeleteI had noticed this, but realised that it was an uncharacteristic lapse. Perhaps we need an association of ex-home educators, rather like an old school association. Off to church ourselves in an hour, where Simone is carrying a candle, genuflecting, muttering arcane phrases and performing other similar mysteries. It has to be said that she has reached a point where caring for men's bodies seems to her of more importance than their souls. I think she sees socialism as a greater force for good in the real world than the church, although I dare say she will continue to serve and read as she is doing today.
Many years ago, when we were still fostering a continual load of young children, friends had a habit of off-loading their childrens' old clothes on us (not complaining- my girls used to end up with a better class of clothing than we ever would have bought!). I can remember at one stage that I told my husband that we would need to foster 1 year old quintuplets to ever use up all the stuff we had accumulated for that age group. It is a bit like that with home education - over the years you accumulate a great deal of knowledge (and often resources) and when you run out of children to HE, it is tempting to want to stay around and share that information and support to others. So I don't find your presence Simon (or Mrs A's or mine) at all surprising! Many of my daughters friends are still around at HE events, because they have younger siblings, so even attending some events still happens here.
ReplyDeleteI may have finally got rid of the baby clothes, but I am not disappearing from the HE world yet.
"She describes herself as a 'wool crafter'. I have racked my brains trying to work out what this might be."
ReplyDeleteYou are clearly unaware of the range of quite complex skills required to get wool from the sheep or goat to the knitted or woven fabric, Simon. I would recommend an in-depth study of the industrial revolution in Yorkshire. All will be revealed.
'You are clearly unaware of the range of quite complex skills required to get wool from the sheep or goat to the knitted or woven fabric, Simon. I would recommend an in-depth study of the industrial revolution in Yorkshire. All will be revealed.'
ReplyDeleteThank you suzyg, but I am perfectly familiar with the process of turning the hair on a sheep's back into the stuff one buys in the shops! Firebird2110 lives however not in a Crofter's hut in the Highlands, but rather in a comfortable house in Godalming, right in the heart of the Stockbroker Belt. I doubt she is shearing sheep and using a spinning wheel of an evening. It is more likely that she is ordering wool from Libertys and weaving dream-catchers with it.
Don't be too sure. I have a friend who lives not far away from Godalming in a large and very comfortable house in an urban environment who is experienced in all aspects of wool craft. It would come as no surprise to me if Private Eye had not already identified a thriving 'community' of wool crafters world-wide, few of them living in hovels, tugging their forelocks or wiping their hands on their smocks.
ReplyDelete"The suggestion that I am no longer a home educator is clearly predicated upon the assumption that a genuine home educator is one who has a child aged between five and sixteen who is not a registered pupil at a school."
ReplyDeleteNot sure why you go on so much about this every time someone says it. I'm sure they don't mean it literally, they being quite as aware of others in similar situations as you are. It's usually just a shorthand expression of exasperation and a wish for you to go away and stop interfering in other people's freedoms to educate in the most suitable way for their child (incidentally a requirement in law). The other people you mention are not attempting to limit the freedoms of current and future home educators, they are trying to maintain them or are offering help - that's the difference. Every time you take this comment so literally and painstaking explain (again) why you are no different to all these other home educators you are displaying your ignorance or inability to read between the lines. Either that or you just hope your literal interpretation will misdirect the attention from its true meaning.
' The other people you mention are not attempting to limit the freedoms of current and future home educators,'
ReplyDeleteWooly thinking alert!!!! I really could not care less about the freedoms of of home educators. My only concern is for the right of children to an education. This is quite a different thing. Some of the things which I say could have an impact on the future right of children to an education. I accept that and am happy to stand by my views. The things said by those arguing against new regulations might also have an effect upon the right of children to an education. All of us discussing home education are in the same boat in this respect. All that we say may, in different ways, have a future effect upon the rights of children. The freedoms of home educators have no more to do with the case than the flowers that bloom in the spring.
"Wooly thinking alert!!!! I really could not care less about the freedoms of of home educators. My only concern is for the right of children to an education."
ReplyDeleteReplace the words 'home educators' with 'home educated children' and the same will apply. I count my children as home educators. They are autonomously educated - they are the controllers of their education with much help from their parents and have as much if not more right to be classed as home educators as their parents.
"The things said by those arguing against new regulations might also have an effect upon the right of children to an education."
ReplyDeleteYes. They would maintain my children's right to a suitable education.
"Replace the words 'home educators' with 'home educated children' and the same will apply. I count my children as home educators."
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is why some people react so strongly against your views and Badman's plans? It's not so much as them seeing it as an attack against their, the parent's rights, but against their children. They believe that the planned changes would harm their children so obviously become defensive and agitated as any parent would.
Paraphrasing Simon's real meaning:
ReplyDelete"I really could not care less about the freedoms of children to direct their own education. My only concern is for the right of parents to control their education (as long as the LA agrees with their plans and the child's progress too). This is quite a different thing. Some of the things which I say could have an impact on the future right of children to control their education. I accept that and am happy to stand by my views. The things said by those arguing against new regulations might also have an effect upon the right of children to control their education (they might get to keep control). All of us discussing home education are in the same boat in this respect. All that we say may, in different ways, have a future effect upon the rights of children. The freedoms of children to control their learning have no more to do with education (as I and LAs see it) than the flowers that bloom in the spring."
A wool crafter is a quick way of saying carder, dyer, spinner, knitter, weaver, crocheter, felter, fuller and many other things you can do with yarn.
ReplyDelete"Wooly thinking alert!!!! I really could not care less about the freedoms of of home educators. My only concern is for the right of children to an education."
ReplyDeleteOthers have said more or less the same thing in comments above that I am about to say, but this is simply so enfuriating, that I cannot help but chime in!
It surely is you who are wooly-headed here, Simon! Either that, or heaven forbid, yet ANOTHER straw man. If the latter, and I suspect it is, for you must surely know that most home educated children as well as their parents would couch themselves home educators, when will you make some sort of resolution to stop doing this?
I am not sure what would need to come first: whether it be a determination to argue honestly and logically or a massive improvement in morality. (Your utterances reveal a moral deficit as clearly as a fossil reveals the animal. One does not need to know of your other dubious activities.)
By playing into the hands of the authorities, you will remove the right of many home educators (ie: children) to an education of their choice. This education would be the one to which they could commit, which in every sense of the word would be suitable. These children may well not thrive in a state approved education. You therefore would destroy people's lives.
Think on that, Simon. Just think on it and do not assume that you know everything. A certain humility and recognition of the limits of your knowledge would also be useful and appropriate.
I am not sure what would need to come first: whether it be a determination to argue logically or a massive improvement in morality. (Your utterances reveal a moral deficit as clearly as a fossil reveals the animal. One does not need to know of your other dubious activities.)
'(Your utterances reveal a moral deficit as clearly as a fossil reveals the animal. One does not need to know of your other dubious activities.) '
ReplyDeleteThis sanctimonious claptrap sounds suspiciously like Mike Fortune-Word. There surely cannot be two people in twenty first century Britian who talk of people's utterances? This sort of thing is basically a smear job and not a particularly well done one at that. What are these other dubious activities? Paedophilia? Treason?, Bank robberies? The reader's imagination must fill in the gaps. Shocking piece of work which is not worth answering.
' I count my children as home educators.'
ReplyDeleteYou may well do. I have never in all my life seen the term 'home educators' used to apply to the children being educated. It is without exception used to refer to the adults providing the education.
I have always included children within the term home educators! We go to home educator camps, not home educators and their children camps, we go to home educator's meetings where the most important individuals are the children, when we meet or talk about fellow home educators as a family we mean the whole family, not just the parents. I've no idea where you strange idea that only parents can be home educators stems from.
ReplyDelete'I've no idea where your strange idea that only parents can be home educators stems from'.
ReplyDeleteI have no such idea. I was responding to the person who commented above;
'It's usually just a shorthand expression of exasperation and a wish for you to go away and stop interfering in other people's freedoms to educate in the most suitable way for their child (incidentally a requirement in law). The other people you mention are not attempting to limit the freedoms of current and future home educators,'
This person was using 'home educator' to mean a person educating their child. I was following their use of the expression.
"This sort of thing is basically a smear job and not a particularly well done one at that. What are these other dubious activities? Paedophilia? Treason?, Bank robberies?"
ReplyDeleteI imagine your transgressions are well known to many by now, but just in case some have missed it, you yourself have admitted to at least some of them and these reveal a complete lack of moral integrity, imo.
On top of writing about crystal healing and astrology in what looks like bad faith, you have also let on that:
"I did post a link to a bit I did for the Telegraph. Now I must let you into a little secret. Third rate hack freelancers, into which category I am obliged to place myself, have a deplorable habit of misrepresenting themselves to both editors and also the public at large. It's perfectly true that I described myself as a teacher in that article. However if you were to be a reader of True Detective, then you would a few years ago have found me describing myself as a former detective from Scotland Yard! And don't even ask what I claimed to be when writing for The Lady..... Why, I even change gender for women's magazines. I know, I'm utterly shameless, but what can I do? I have to pay the bills like everybody else. Or maybe I should go on benefits?"
'I imagine your transgressions are well known to many by now,'
ReplyDeleteThis makes it a racing certainty that this particular anonymous is none other than Mike Fortune-Wood! Who but he would use a word like 'trangressions' in this context? Why is he ashamed to sign his name to these comments? The quotation is from an article which I wrote for a magazine about the problems of freelance writers. I included in a post to HE-UK because I thought it would give people a laugh. It never occurred to me for a moment that anybody would read it as anything other than satire, but I seriously underestimated the po-faced and humourless nature of many of those on this list!
So you didn't do this then, Simon?
ReplyDelete"This makes it a racing certainty that this particular anonymous is none other than Mike Fortune-Wood! Who but he would use a word like 'trangressions' in this context?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of tosh! Why would use of a single word suggest Mike FW? I've been mistaken for at least three other people by you in the past so I very much doubt you are accurate this time.
"The quotation is from an article which I wrote for a magazine about the problems of freelance writers."
This is the first time I've heard this explanation for the quoted text despite it being trotted out many time previously. Did you really write, "it's perfectly true that I described myself as a teacher in that article", in an article for a magazine about the problems of freelance writers? Seems very strange that it was 'quoted' in answer to a question on the email list about you saying you were a teacher in an article. It reads far more like something a person might write to an email list rather than a magazine article.
And how can admitting that you lied about being a teacher to give an article some authority be classed as satire?
'Did you really write, "it's perfectly true that I described myself as a teacher in that article",'
ReplyDeleteI obviously adapted the piece so that it was appropriate for the answer which I was giving!
'This is the first time I've heard this explanation for the quoted text despite it being trotted out many time previously.'
I have made many jokes about it here, including devoting a post to it. This is getting pretty stale by now.
'And how can admitting that you lied about being a teacher to give an article some authority be classed as satire?'
I was not aware that I had lied about this. We have been over this ground so often that I fear there is little to be said now.
Simon quoted and wrote,
ReplyDelete"'This is the first time I've heard this explanation for the quoted text despite it being trotted out many time previously.'
I have made many jokes about it here, including devoting a post to it. This is getting pretty stale by now."
Yet despite discussing it many times and even devoting a post to it you never mentioned that it originally formed part of a magazine article?
"'And how can admitting that you lied about being a teacher to give an article some authority be classed as satire?'
I was not aware that I had lied about this. We have been over this ground so often that I fear there is little to be said now."
Err, you lied in the article, not about lying.
'Yet despite discussing it many times and even devoting a post to it you never mentioned that it originally formed part of a magazine article?'
ReplyDeleteI have mentioned this countless times, devoting as I say an entire post to the subject.
'Err, you lied in the article, not about lying.'
Sorry, this is getting a little complicated. What is the lie to which you refer?
That you are a qualified teacher.
ReplyDeleteApologies for missing previous references to the original magazine article. I think I was thrown by its adaptation to answer a particular question about you being a teacher on the email list and its chatty style. It seemed more suitable for an email conversation than a magazine article.
ReplyDeleteYou also wrote:
"The fact is that many magazines wish to appear authoritative. To this end, they often encourage contributors to puff up their qualification to write upon a given topic. There is no particular secret about this, it's just how things work in that field."
So you are obviously aware that the reason you said you were a teacher in the newspaper article was to mislead readers and suggest an authority for the article that did not exist. I think your belief that lying in order to support and bolster your opinion and to add authority to your argument is an acceptable and normal practice is one of the reasons many people do not trust what you say.
I skimmed through the rest of the post, but as soon as I read your comments about "wool-crafting" I wondered if you'd heard of felting. Just look it up on google images and you'll see what I mean. She probably does all sorts of things with wool, which would justify a description like this.
ReplyDelete'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThat you are a qualified teacher.'
Ah, so you are saying, if I am able to follow you correctly, that somewhere I claim to be a qualified teacher and elsewhere I say that I am not. Have I got that right?
'I skimmed through the rest of the post, but as soon as I read your comments about "wool-crafting" I wondered if you'd heard of felting. Just look it up on google images and you'll see what I mean. She probably does all sorts of things with wool, which would justify a description like this.'
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, Scatty. It's just that most people I know say that they do felting or weaving or knitting. Using the expression wool crafting just sounded odd. Have you ever heard of anybody else who says, 'I am a wool crafter'?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Ah, so you are saying, if I am able to follow you correctly, that somewhere I claim to be a qualified teacher and elsewhere I say that I am not. Have I got that right? "
Yes. I'm not sure why you are finding this so difficult to follow as you say yourself above that, "it's perfectly true that I described myself as a teacher in that article" and you must know your are not a teacher in the sense implied in the article.
In a telegraph article, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3337822/But-how-did-Romeo-feel.html, you say:
As a primary school teacher, I have occasionally enlivened a history lesson in this way, allowing the children to act out historical tableaux.
But when asked about this on the email list you said that you were not a teacher and that often article writers lie about things like this in order to give an article authority. This belief of yours, that misleading readers in this way to support and bolster your opinion and add authority to an argument is acceptable and normal, is one of the reasons many people do not trust what you say.
'But when asked about this on the email list you said that you were not a teacher '
ReplyDeleteAre you sure that I did not say, 'I am not a teacher', in the sense that I am no longer a teacher? I seem to recollect that there was some objection to my being on list on the grounds that I was a professional and therefore had no business there. I think that I was reassuring anxious parents that I was not currently employed by a local authority and that nor did I work in a school.
Were you ever a primary school teacher, Simon? And did you enliven history lessons (in school) by allowing children to act out historical tableaux?
ReplyDelete"Are you sure that I did not say, 'I am not a teacher', in the sense that I am no longer a teacher? I seem to recollect that there was some objection to my being on list on the grounds that I was a professional and therefore had no business there."
ReplyDeleteNo, you were told that as a qualified teacher you would get an easy ride from the LA. You answered this by stating that you are not a teacher. Clearly the issue was that having the training and experience of a qualified teacher would be valued and respected by the LA, your current position would be irrelevant. You expressed bafflement at this claim (that you were a teacher) and someone brought up your article in which you claim to be a Primary School to explain why someone might believe this to be the case. This was when you explained that it is entirely normal to lie in order to give authority to an article and to support what would otherwise be considered uninformed opinion.
Yes, as usual, the whole story is not being told here. I made it clear that as far as Essex, my local authority, were concerned, I was 'just a parent'. I made it plain by a few anecdotes that at case conferences I had heard mothers describe themselves in this way and decided that when I had a child, that is how I would describe myself as well. Essex have no idea to this day what my past profession was; why would I tell them that?
ReplyDeleteAs far as writing for magazines goes and the way that women's magazines, for example, alter men's names into women, well I have gone into this in depth here before and do not intend to repeat the exercise!
Anybody wanting to see a little more about the notorious claim that I boast of being prepared to lie for money, should look at the post for October 7th last year; Writing for the Papers. One of the people above suggests that this is the first time that I have metnioned that this was based upon an article I wrote, but I went into it in detail over a year ago. Wake up, Rip Van Winkle!
ReplyDelete"Yes, as usual, the whole story is not being told here. I made it clear that as far as Essex, my local authority, were concerned, I was 'just a parent'."
ReplyDeleteNo you didn't. You said that you are not a teacher and said nothing about telling Essex that you were 'just a parent', I've just read the conversation through again as I happen to have kept all my old emails from that time.
So are you a trained teacher? A simple question and we still don't know the answer.
"One of the people above suggests that this is the first time that I have metnioned that this was based upon an article I wrote, but I went into it in detail over a year ago. Wake up, Rip Van Winkle!"
Wake up, Simon, I've already apologised for missing that.
"As far as writing for magazines goes and the way that women's magazines, for example, alter men's names into women, well I have gone into this in depth here before and do not intend to repeat the exercise! "
ReplyDeleteI've never been interested in this. Pen names are so common that, unless you call yourself something in order to give an article false authority (Professor Webb, for instance) it's largely irrelevant. I'm interested in why you lied about being a teacher in the newspaper article or why you lied about not being trained teacher on the HE list. This lie would affect how people viewed what you had say because it related to education, about which you were claiming superior knowledge (or lack of superior knowledge) as a result of training and experience.
I have probably spent about as long on this as I intend to spend, especially since I have been through it all a hundred times before. I will explain once more and then I shall not be responding to further questions. In my life, I have been many things and done a lot of different jobs. If somebody were to suggest that I got on well with, say for example, civil servants at the Department for Education, because I am myself a civil servant; I should deny it and say quite truthfully, 'I am not a civil servant'. This does not mean that between 1974 and 1977 I was not a civil servant at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I was. Similarly, when I first married in 1978, I put down my profession as 'agricultural worker'. This was because I was working on a farm at that time. If somebody challenged me now and said, 'Aren't you a farm worker?', I should be surprised and ask them why on earth they thought so. These are two small examples. I notice that you carefully avoid revealing even your own gender, let alone details of your life in this way. For this reason, I shall have no more to say about this, at least until you start to tell us a little about your own past; details such as your employment history and so on. I seem to be giving a lot of information away and receiving none in return!
ReplyDeleteI'm don't care about your history. I don't care if you have been a teacher or not. I'm just explaining to you why people don't trust you. Nothing you have said so far has disproved my assertion that you have a history of lying to give your opinions more authority than they would otherwise have, seeing this as perfectly normal, and this is why you are distrusted. I fail to how my gender or history is relevant to proving or disproving this assertion.
ReplyDelete"If somebody challenged me now and said, 'Aren't you a farm worker?', I should be surprised and ask them why on earth they thought so."
ReplyDeleteBut if someone asked you if had ever been a farm worker, why on earth would you lie and say you hadn't? Maybe because having been a farm worker in the past would weaken a current argument.
"If somebody challenged me now and said, 'Aren't you a farm worker?', I should be surprised and ask them why on earth they thought so."
ReplyDeleteBut that was not what you were asked. It was clear from the context that you were being asked if you had ever been a teacher.
"I have probably spent about as long on this as I intend to spend, especially since I have been through it all a hundred times before. I will explain once more and then I shall not be responding to further questions."
You've been asked a hundred times before if you are a trained teacher because in one place you say you are and in another you deny it. Every single time you have deflected the question and attempted to change the subject or twist the question (as in the example quoted above). You've just given a long list of previous occupations that nobody has the slightest interest in yet seem incapable of saying, yes, I trained and was employed as a Primary School Teacher, or no, I was not trained or employed as a Primary School Teacher.
It doesn't really matter which it is though because you either lied to give authority to a newspaper article or you lied in order to 'win' an argument on an email list. And then you wonder why you are distrusted...