Monday 29 November 2010

On debate

One of the things which tends to make discussion with home educating parents a little heavy going at times is that they often seem to take a debating point about their philosophy as an attack on their parenting skills or general lifestyle. This is I suppose inevitable. As parents, we are naturally sensitive about any implied criticism of the way that we raise our children. When we have chose a somewhat bizarre and heterodox method for bringing up our children, we are bound to be on the lookout for anybody suggesting that it actually is a bizarre and heterodox method!

Somebody commenting yesterday made an observation which others have hinted at but been perhaps too inarticulate to put into words. She said;

' You seem always to put the worst possible interpretation onto things people say.'

This is not at all how I would put the case, but one quite sees what she means by this. Having established what general principle somebody professes adherence to, I exhibit the logical consequences of following that particular belief system. Or, to be exact, I exhibit the possible logical consequences. This does not of course mean that when I show what might follow from sticking strictly to some ideology of child rearing, I assume that this is what really does happen; only that it might and is not forbidden by the system under discussion. The reason that I do this is simple. Most of those who come onto this blog and comment here are perfectly reasonable people who raise their children as responsibly and sensibly as anybody else. They provide them with an education and care for them efficiently. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether any non-home educating parent would be able to tell the difference between the methods which I used to educate my child and the methods which autonomous parents use! In both cases, there is heavy emphasis upon conversation as the primary tool of instruction and a good deal of the education takes place out and about, rather than actually in the home.

What concerns me and what I try to show, is what could result from somebody taking the ideas which are being talked about here and applying them without really understanding what they are doing. I believe that this could result in the neglect of a child's education. Note that I am not saying that it will result in such a neglect, only that it might. Of course, it might be argued that any philosophy or educational method can be misused and some of those who have commented here certainly claim that a strictly followed scheme of formal education in the home might have ill effects for the child. This is why I was asking recently whether anybody had seen such a thing, that is to say formal education at home which does the child harm.

When I point out what may follow from somebody's educational philosophy, this is not at all the same thing as telling them that their educational philosophy is wrong or dangerous. It is more pointing out that it is possible to be misunderstood or misused. The question to ask is, 'How common is that?'. How frequently does the idea of intrinsic motivation as applied to home education result in a poor education or none at all? Some local authorities believe that this is a common occurrence. Autonomous educators would say that it is rare. Without doubt, one sees people posting on some of the home education forums who really seem to have the wrong end of the stick and whom one strongly suspects are not providing much of an education for their children. I have encountered such parents myself. Most of them follow a misunderstood version of autonomous education. What interests me greatly is whether or not anybody has seen a similar thing happening with structured education. In other words, has anybody witnessed structured education causing harm to a child's education? This would be a very good thing to discuss. Can standard theories of education cause harm to a child's education when conducted at home?

23 comments:

  1. continued...
    Simon wrote,
    "When I point out what may follow from somebody's educational philosophy, this is not at all the same thing as telling them that their educational philosophy is wrong or dangerous."

    But you are not telling me what may follow from my educational philosophy, you are telling me what may follow from your twisted and very incomplete version of my educational philosophy. Your version is so different as to be unrecognisable.

    Simon wrote,
    "Autonomous educators would say that it is rare. Without doubt, one sees people posting on some of the home education forums who really seem to have the wrong end of the stick and whom one strongly suspects are not providing much of an education for their children."

    Then why are you not pointing out their mistaken understanding of AE to them there if you are so keen to help them? What point is there in writing something elsewhere that they are unlikely to read, whilst at the same time misleading people who do read your blog about what AE is?

    Simon wrote,
    "In other words, has anybody witnessed structured education causing harm to a child's education? This would be a very good thing to discuss. Can standard theories of education cause harm to a child's education when conducted at home?"

    Ruth Lawrence, Sufiah Yusof?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Blogger is deleting at random again. This post was originally first:

    Simon wrote,
    "Having established what general principle somebody professes adherence to, I exhibit the logical consequences of following that particular belief system."

    But you don't do this. You create you own version of what people profess to follow and then deduce 'logical' consequences from that. If someone states that they follow an autonomous approach you invariably leap to the conclusion that this means the child is left to make all decisions and all actions by themselves - effectively laissez faire parenting. You have been told many times that AE involves lots of information sharing, support, guidance and help from their parents yet you still ignore this aspect. Your 'logical consequences' clearly take no account of this.

    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  3. and this was originally part of the first comment - I seem to be writing too much!

    Simon wrote,
    "Having established what general principle somebody professes adherence to, I exhibit the logical consequences of following that particular belief system."

    But you don't do this. You create you own version of what people profess to follow and then deduce 'logical' consequences from that. If someone states that they follow an autonomous approach you invariably leap to the conclusion that this means the child is left to make all decisions and all actions by themselves - effectively laissez faire parenting. You have been told many times that AE involves lots of information sharing, support, guidance and help from their parents yet you still ignore this aspect. Your 'logical consequences' clearly take no account of this.

    Simon wrote,
    "What concerns me and what I try to show, is what could result from somebody taking the ideas which are being talked about here and applying them without really understanding what they are doing. I believe that this could result in the neglect of a child's education."

    If someone reads the odd sentence here and there they might leap to wrong conclusions about AE, but if they are capable of basing their child rearing practices on the odd sentence there's not much anyone can do to help them! How likely is it that they will read your supposed consequences to their misreading of autonomous education practices if they are incapable of carrying out even basic research into autonomous education itself?

    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry for repeating myself. The last post should only have included the final two paragraphs. The first two were repeats of the last comment included in error. I blame blogger for making me resort to cutting and pasting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'Autonomous educators would say that it is rare. Without doubt, one sees people posting on some of the home education forums who really seem to have the wrong end of the stick and whom one strongly suspects are not providing much of an education for their children."

    Then why are you not pointing out their mistaken understanding of AE to them there if you are so keen to help them?'

    I used to do this until I was thrown off the forums! The last time that I got somebody to post for me, she got banned from the HE-UK list as well. I still see the thing happening but am unable to debate it there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ' Can standard theories of education cause harm to a child's education when conducted at home?"

    Ruth Lawrence, Sufiah Yusof?'

    Yes, I thought about Sufiah Yusof as well. I'm not sure about Ruth Lawrence though. What harm befell her, apart from marrying a man twenty eight years her senior and deciding not to home educate her own children?

    ReplyDelete
  7. But you are not telling me what may follow from my educational philosophy, you are telling me what may follow from your twisted and very incomplete version of my educational philosophy. Your version is so different as to be unrecognisable.'

    Well, no. I am following what is being said by those who claim to be autonomous educators. For example, on one of the forums I am still on, I mentioned an eleven year-old child working in an illegal factory in East London as an example of how children could be missing from education. One of the moderators then suggested that this might be quite an appropriate education. I also mentioned a fourteen year-old girl who spent all day slumped in front of the television and was told that this too could be a good education. I respond to what peple say, not what I imagine they might believe. rather than focus upon the philosophical aspects of education, I am concerned with what people actually see as being a suitable education.

    '

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'You have been told many times that AE involves lots of information sharing, support, guidance and help from their parents yet you still ignore this aspect. Your 'logical consequences' clearly take no account of this.'

    I have not the least doubt that in many cases this is true. I also know that in many others, it is not. I was pointing out what could and does happen, not suggesting that it is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I used to do this until I was thrown off the forums! The last time that I got somebody to post for me, she got banned from the HE-UK list as well. I still see the thing happening but am unable to debate it there. "

    I don't recall you correcting misapprehensions about AE.. Plenty of instances where you criticized your faulty version of AE, but none where you accurately corrected someone else's misunderstanding of it. I'd be interested to see an example of one of these helpful emails. Certainly the recent post the the HE-UK list had nothing to do with correcting misunderstandings about AE!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I'm not sure about Ruth Lawrence though. What harm befell her, "

    She seems to have become extranged from her father which is sad and it doesn't sound as though she thinks her education was rounded judging by her comments. She is very careful about how she words it, but she definitly does not want to bring her son up in the same way:

    "Then Ruth, now 28, adds carefully: "I, though, was always eager to learn more.

    "I want Yehuda to develop in a natural way," she adds. "My husband and I will not do exactly as everybody else does when they bring up a child. But I don't want Yehuda to be 'different'.

    "Like any parents, we want our son to do as well as he can in every aspect of his life. We also want him to be a rounded person. I enjoy being a parent and yes, it has changed me."

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20000604/ai_n14504816/

    Ruth's situation in no way compares to Sufiah Yusof's, but it certainly sounds as though she would have benefited from a less 'hot housed' experience.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I also mentioned a fourteen year-old girl who spent all day slumped in front of the television and was told that this too could be a good education."

    So someone makes the suggestion that the girl *may* be better off educationally than if she were forced to attend school against her will and you leap to the conclusion that this is the way they educate their own child? Shouldn't you be looking as descriptions of how they actually educate their own children rather than taking random comments from discussions about extreme worst case scenarios about which we have very little information?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "'You have been told many times that AE involves lots of information sharing, support, guidance and help from their parents yet you still ignore this aspect. Your 'logical consequences' clearly take no account of this.'

    I have not the least doubt that in many cases this is true. I also know that in many others, it is not."

    But not providing help would be coercive, so how can it correctly be called autonomous education? If someone genuinely has said that they leave their child to their own devices without help, support and information, and call this autonomous education, they should be corrected. This is not AE it's laissez faire parenting and an ideal opportunity for you to jump in and help them be explaining the difference. Did you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'So someone makes the suggestion that the girl *may* be better off educationally than if she were forced to attend school against her will and you leap to the conclusion that this is the way they educate their own child?@

    I have no idea how the person who said this educates her own child, nor is it relevant. Her views though shed light upon how some parents view home education. The point here is that 99.99% of ordinary parents would not see working in a factory at eleven or watching television all day at fourteen as being a good education. This woman could not seem to see this and I think that this indicates her attitude towards education. How she actually educates her own child is neither here nor there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'But not providing help would be coercive, so how can it correctly be called autonomous education?'

    You are very bound up with terminology. I am more concerned with what people are actually doing; whatever name they call it by.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'Ruth's situation in no way compares to Sufiah Yusof's, but it certainly sounds as though she would have benefited from a less 'hot housed' experience.'

    Oh, I think that that is probably true. I just wondered if you had anything apart from the usual stuff about the possible estrangement from her father and so on. You must bear in mind that some of her present views stem from living in a very orthodox environment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Her views though shed light upon how some parents view home education."

    Possibly about home education in extreme situations where lots of damage has already been done, but why look at such extreme examples for information about educational philosophy? Would you think it reasonable to discuss the pros and cons of your methods in relation to the example you gave? The approach taken with a 14 year old who has disengaged from education is going to be very different from the approach taken with a 5 year old who still loves learning. You seem less interested in debating educational theories than random controversial phrases from email lists out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You are very bound up with terminology. I am more concerned with what people are actually doing; whatever name they call it by."

    Only when you get things so wrong and totally misrepresent the education we've provided for our children as a result. Using terminology correctly saves having to describe a whole philosophy of education ever time I want to discuss it, that's why terminology is used so often in so many different fields. It would get very tedious if I had to include the education philosophy that I send to my LA every time I want to debate an issue with you and I'm sure Blogger would not allow it! It already struggles with the length of my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Simon wrote,
    "What concerns me and what I try to show, is what could result from somebody taking the ideas which are being talked about here and applying them without really understanding what they are doing."

    Then why do you persist in mis-representing the original ideas? You are only going to re-reinforce their misunderstanding.

    Simon wrote,
    "Most of them follow a misunderstood version of autonomous education."

    Then correct the misunderstanding (if you can), don't spread the misinformation further afield via your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'Then correct the misunderstanding (if you can), don't spread the misinformation further afield via your blog.'

    A pretty loopy suggestion. If I really wanted to spread misinformation about autonomous education, I would not allow any comments and just have my own views on here. The very fact that I operate no moderation and allow anybody to contradict me and say anything they like, must surely tell any objective reader that the spreading of misinformation is not my aim. How different, how very different, from the blogs and forums which will not allow my own opinions to be published!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "A pretty loopy suggestion. If I really wanted to spread misinformation about autonomous education, I would not allow any comments and just have my own views on here."

    Well obviously the comments aren't working. Even you have not managed to learn the difference between laissez faire parenting and autonomous education. I'm sure many people don't even bother to read blog comments. I know I often don't bother.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The very fact that I operate no moderation and allow anybody to contradict me and say anything they like, must surely tell any objective reader that the spreading of misinformation is not my aim. How different, how very different, from the blogs and forums which will not allow my own opinions to be published!"

    If you used the same descriptions of AE on other blogs and forums as you do here you were spreading misinformation, so banning you reduced the level of misinformation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'If you used the same descriptions of AE on other blogs and forums as you do here you were spreading misinformation, so banning you reduced the level of misinformation.'

    Well of course, by the same token I find some of the comments made here very misleading and sometimes downright untruthful. I suppose that I could decide to impose strict moderation upon you and others with whom I disagree. I could do this on the grounds that you are yourself spreading misinformation! Whether one does this or not depends really upon whether one thinks that censorship is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it a bad thing and so do not do so. You, judging by what you say above, think it a good thing and so approve of it. Again, we must agree to differ.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Well of course, by the same token I find some of the comments made here very misleading and sometimes downright untruthful."

    Such as?

    ReplyDelete