I am and have for many years been, fanatically keen on home education. It is the one thing about me which most people probably know. Part of my work entails helping parents to de-register children with special educational needs from school and I am always happy also to lend a hand with this sort of thing in my private capacity. For the last fifteen years, since I withdrew my oldest daughter from school for part of the week, I have harangued anybody who will listen, with the virtues of home education, particularly as compared with the average maintained school. It is therefore the most delicious irony that I am regarded by a small number of other home educating parents as being in some way hostile to home education! When I mention this to people who are not themselves involved with home education, they are astonished.
I am not at all a fan of most schools. Many are absolutely dreadful and provide an atrocious education; unless that is you consider the acquisition by a child of cruelty, idleness, dishonesty, crude language and poor behaviour as a suitable education. In such a case, most schools excel! I have said before, and this is not figure of speech but the literal truth, that I would not trust any of the local schools in this area to look after my cat for the day. However, there are good schools. And this is the heart of the difficulty with home education. There are good schools which provide a first class education and there are bad schools which do not. Similarly, there is good home education which provides a first class education and there is bad home education which does not. Most ordinary, non-home educating parents would have no problem in accepting the truth of both these propositions. Some home educating parents however, will cheerfully agree with the first of the statements and become incandescent with fury at the second. As scripture says, they are like those who swallow a camel and then strain at a gnat.
I am just waiting now for some fool to say, 'Oh, I suppose you mean that all home educators should be forced to adopt your methods.' Nothing of the sort. Good schools use a variety of methods. The only thing which matters ultimately is not the methods, but the results. This is generally what schools are judged on; the results which they achieve. An independent inspectorate visits schools regularly and writes reports on them. What I am advocating is a similar inspectorate for home education, with home educating parents being at the heart of the process.
I really cannot understand how anybody could fail to see that just as there is good school education and bad, so too there is good home education and bad. To me and I have to say every other parent to whom I speak, this seems so self evident as to be hardly worth discussing. If we accept this, then it is clear that just as we try to identify failing schools and try to help them improve, so too we should be making an attempt to identify failing home education and aiming to improve that as well. I am sorry that a number of home educators do not get this. Quite a few do, but they tend to be the ones who just get on with educating their children and working in partnership with their local authority towards that end. I was amused to see the quotations from parents in the document which Alison Sauer has been circulating. These are clearly parents whom the local authority feels are failing in their duty to provide a suitable education for their children. Anybody involved with schools and teaching will at once recognise the sentiments expressed. Slack and inefficient teachers say the same sort of thing when they are criticised or as some would say 'bullied' for their poor performance.
In short, I am in favour of improving the standard of education in this country for all children, both those educated at home and those at school. I have little sympathy with either teachers or parents who are not dedicated to this end. As I have said before, all the rights are with the child when it comes to education. And yet once again, we are seeing reference being made to the wholly spurious 'rights' of parents. We even saw this in the document from the Department for Education yesterday. Parents' 'right' to home educate, indeed. I never saw more pernicious nonsense in my life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm puzzled as to why you consider the education provided by some schools as atrocious, but the content of the syllabus for public examinations as self-evidently good.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way that the examinations necessary to enter a professional body such as accountancy may be rigorous and demanding, but that an institute providing evening classes to study for these exams might be very inefficient. The two things are quite separate.
ReplyDeleteSo does this mean that everyone must agree that the syllabus is excellent and thus follow it? Is there no room in your 'world' for different priorities and choices?
ReplyDelete"And yet once again, we are seeing reference being made to the wholly spurious 'rights' of parents."
ReplyDeleteWhat about the rights of children? Is the 'right' to a suitable education merely the 'duty' to learn enough to become a good, compliant economic unit on behalf of the state? If this is their 'right' then you are correct, we are all working for the state and should therefore be monitored by it as you say.
So to clarify; what you want is an annual inspection system run by other home educators, is that right?
ReplyDelete'So does this mean that everyone must agree that the syllabus is excellent and thus follow it? Is there no room in your 'world' for different priorities and choices?'
ReplyDeleteI have said nothing at all about any syllabus!
'So to clarify; what you want is an annual inspection system run by other home educators, is that right?'
ReplyDeletePretty much, yes. The present arrangment where most of the visits are being made by ex-teachers is annoying for many and I can quite see why.
"Pretty much, yes. The present arrangment where most of the visits are being made by ex-teachers is annoying for many and I can quite see why."
ReplyDeleteOk, some thoughts.
In your opinion, why is inspection necessary for every family? Should it not be target at those who need it?
Secondly, why annual? Would it not be more appropriate(if at all) to visit at transition times, for example age 5, 11, 14 and maybe 16 too.
Lastly, how will it work then. HEers are possibly going to feel betrayed by other HEers who are 'spying' on them. This may lead to more hostility and distrust.
Simon Webb
ReplyDeleteYou have done more to damage the cause of home education than Graham Badman but you are so incorrigibly insensitive that you cannot understand it.. You are not despised for this by a few, but the many.
Your name attached to any initiative would taint and prejudice it's consideration. In a reflective moment, stop and read the impetuous way that you have behaved with this blog.
Have you ever considered the benefits of harbouring a little humility before you get to old to change?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I have said nothing at all about any syllabus!"
Suzyg asked you if you thought the content of the syllabus for public examinations are self-evidently good and you appeared to agree. You certainly did not disagree when you answered her question.
Why can you not see the obvious, that the growth of power surrounding an inspection driven state school system has developed in parallel with the growth of failure in educational achievement?
ReplyDelete"It doesn't, so we are going to more of it."
Sorry, should have read
ReplyDelete"It doesn't, work so we are going to more of it."
"In the same way that the examinations necessary to enter a professional body such as accountancy may be rigorous and demanding, but that an institute providing evening classes to study for these exams might be very inefficient. The two things are quite separate. "
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware that the two things are separate. But there's considerable disagreement about the content of the national curriculum, and on the form and content of public examinations and the body of knowledge they assess. You don't appear to question the criteria for assessing the 'results' of home education. Many other parents do, and not just because they are making excuses for their, or their children's inadequacies.
Children have the right to a suitable education.
ReplyDeleteParents have a duty to ensure they receive that right.
Government has a duty as the parent of last resort if a parent fails in their duty.
Just as the government has a duty as parent of last resort where feeding, clothing and caring for children is concerned. Just as the government has a duty to detect and punish crimes. In every other area of life, people are assumed to be fulfilling their duty and following laws unless evidence to the contrary comes to light. Why should the duty to ensure provision of a suitable education be any different?
Comparing school inspection to HE inspection is nonsensical because schools are inspected on behalf of parents (because they are the ones with the duty to ensure...). It is only if you believe that the state is the primary parent of children that state inspection of parental provision makes sense.
Children have a right to an education. They cannot be forced to take it up and this is not required in law. Testing children to ensure they have a right to an education is therefore nonsensical. They could quite easily be receiving a suitable education (as is their right), but may not choose to take advantage of it. Unless it is put into law that children have this duty and must learn what is put before them, testing children to test provision is nonsensical.
AnonySue said...
ReplyDeleteChildren have the right to a suitable education.
Parents have a duty to ensure they receive that right.
AnonySue - well said, well written, and concise intelligent thinking. Rare to find such intelligence s on Webbs disaster blogg! :)
Thank you
Anon said - Rare to find such intelligence
ReplyDeleteWebb is certainly not known for cogent thinking and lacks any ability for creating a cohesive case for anything. His book is arrant nonsense and make believe.
I agree with anonysSue
As I have said before, all the rights are with the child when it comes to education.
ReplyDeleteSo Webb if a child at a state school says it wants to have the right to an education at home your fully support it?
Old Webb says-What I am advocating is a similar inspectorate for home education, with home educating parents being at the heart of the process.
ReplyDeleteNO Thanks to that idea! there will be no one inpecting our home or the home education we give what you going to do about that Webb??
Webb says-What I am advocating is a similar inspectorate for home education, with home educating parents being at the heart of the process.
ReplyDeleteMarxist delusions of grandeur. Home educators are not ever going tolerate being inspected and rightly so. If you are planning your career hopes on being the head of a home education inspectorate, writer, or P.R. specialist you have as much chance of success as a one-legged man has of winning an arse kicking competition.
'Marxist delusions of grandeur.'
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I am a Conservative!
' If you are planning your career hopes on being the head of a home education inspectorate, writer, or P.R. specialist'
That old chestnut. Again! I neither want, nor would I accept such a role. The idea of being involved in inspecting the educational provision of home educating parents sounds like a nightmare career and I for one would not touch it with a bargepole.
In your opinion, why is inspection necessary for every family? Should it not be target at those who need it?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, why annual? Would it not be more appropriate(if at all) to visit at transition times, for example age 5, 11, 14 and maybe 16 too.'
The problem with inspecting some provision and not others is that those who were being inspected more regularly would complain that they were being victimised. As for just inspecting at key points, that sounds like an interesting idea as well. That might pick up those who need extra help. There is no doubt that some who are currently receiving annual visits don't need them, while others are receiving no visits and could do with help. It is a tricky equation to balance and whatever is done there will still be some who are not happy.
'What about the rights of children? Is the 'right' to a suitable education merely the 'duty' to learn enough to become a good, compliant economic unit on behalf of the state? '
ReplyDeleteRights and duties are two different things. This question is indicative of the wider problem in home education, whereby the duties of parents have been somehow confused with a 'right'. I see that the person who made this comment is determined to spread this confusion even further by trying to muddle up the rights of children by attempting to create a supposed 'duty'.
' In every other area of life, people are assumed to be fulfilling their duty and following laws unless evidence to the contrary comes to light.'
ReplyDeleteThis is absolute nonsense, Anonysue. If I wish to build an extension to my house, the authorities will not assume that I am complying with the various legislation regarding the enterprise. They send people round to make sure that I am keeping within the law. If I am running a business, the Inland Revenue will not just trust me to send them the right sum of money. They require evidence and audited accounts. Even then, the VAT inspectors are liable to pop round just to be sure that I am obeying the law. I could write a long list of similar examples; but I think that you get the point. If I fit a new socket in my kitchen, do you really think that it will be assumed that the earth bonding is in place and the thing is not to close to the tap?
'Children have a right to an education. They cannot be forced to take it up and this is not required in law. Testing children to ensure they have a right to an education is therefore nonsensical. They could quite easily be receiving a suitable education (as is their right), but may not choose to take advantage of it. Unless it is put into law that children have this duty and must learn what is put before them, testing children to test provision is nonsensical.'
ReplyDeleteBit of a red herring here, I fancy! I have not said anything at all in the above piece about testing children. I talk only of inspecting provision; quite a different matter. As usual, Anonysue addresses completely irrelevant point from her own thoughts and tries to present this as a refutation of my own views.
The idea of testing children in order to judge the educational provision being made for them is fraught with difficulties. A child with severe learning difficulties might be doing well if she can hold a spoon, whereas another child of the same age will be doing calculus. There is a case to be made for seeing whether or not children can read at eleven, for example, and if they can't, then seeing if this is connected with the type of education which they are receiving. This is an interesting and debateable point, but it is not one which I addressed above.
"I could write a long list of similar examples; but I think that you get the point. If I fit a new socket in my kitchen, do you really think that it will be assumed that the earth bonding is in place and the thing is not to close to the tap?"
ReplyDeleteErr, you don't need permission to fit a new socket in your kitchen, so yes, they would assume this to be the case. VAT evidence is given in writing and very few spot checks are made. Usually evidence of wrongdoing is required. I've kept business accounts for 20 years without being checked, either for income tax or VAT. Most building regs evidence is given in writing and visits are usually cursory and for the benefit of the home owner not the builder (in my experience).
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Rights and duties are two different things. This question is indicative of the wider problem in home education, whereby the duties of parents have been somehow confused with a 'right'."
I did not mention parent's rights or duties so how can you conclude I'm confused about them?
"I see that the person who made this comment is determined to spread this confusion even further by trying to muddle up the rights of children by attempting to create a supposed 'duty'."
No, you are creating a duty for children to learn by assuming that testing children will prove provision. If children have a right to education but not a duty to learn (as you appear to agree), how can testing of children prove provision? If children are not to be tested, why do they need for visits?
Anony says-Err, you don't need permission to fit a new socket in your kitchen, so yes, they would assume this to be the case. VAT evidence is given in writing and very few spot checks are made.
ReplyDeleteYes you are right you do not need permission to fit a new socket nor would it be checked! checks on VAT are often only made when some one report you other than that you just submit writen evidence it would just not be possible for tax department to check every one! it waits for evidence of cheating before taking action!
"Err, you don't need permission to fit a new socket in your kitchen, so yes, they would assume this to be the case"
ReplyDeleteCorrection - things have changed since the last time this was an issue for us! New 2005 regulations have changed things. An electrician can carry out the work without inspection but DIY work does need to be inspected! Adding sockets elsewhere in the home is not notifiable.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Bit of a red herring here, I fancy! I have not said anything at all in the above piece about testing children. I talk only of inspecting provision; quite a different matter."
If the only issue is provision of education, why can this not be accomplished in writing? If a combination of photographic and documentary evidence proves that the family does have the educational materials they claim to have in the home, and that they have attended the educational activities they claim to have attended, what is the point of a visit?
Provision can easily be proven in writing. The only point of a visit would be to test that the child has taken up that provision and learnt from it.
Anony says-but DIY work does need to be inspected!
ReplyDeleteDepends what you mean by DIY? most people still do all sorts of jobs on house with out being checked on! it is only really major work that MAY be checked if some one reports you! there is just not the time or the will to check every one im afraid!
Exactly. Legally we are required to notify the building department if we add a socket in a kitchen (but not a living room), but they don't automatically visit all homes to ensure we are abiding by this requirement.
ReplyDelete