Tuesday 28 December 2010

The rise and fall of mass movements

At various times in my life I have been part of what seemed to me unstoppable movements which would irrevocably change society. In the late sixties and early seventies, it was the commune movement. Groups of people would move into large houses and live as one large family. For a time, communes were being started every week and for a few years, the movement grew at a dramatic rate. This, we thought, was the death knell of the nuclear family. Our way of life was so obviously more healthy and open that eventually most people would see the light and live as we did, rather than huddling together in little family groups. Of course, we were wrong. With one or two exceptions, the only communes which remain today are those run by religious cults. I doubt that many people under the age of forty or fifty have even heard of the commune movement.

Another example is water birth. My daughter was born underwater. Not just the labour, but the birth itself was in water. This was in 1993, at the height of the water birth craze and we were part of a movement then which we thought was going to revolutionise obstetrics. No more gas and air! An end to epidurals! Natural birth for all! Soon, most women with healthy pregnancies would be giving birth naturally in this way; at home and in hospitals. Fifteen years later in 2008, water was used in just under 1% of births in this country. The main use was for labour; very few births took place under water.

I dare say that readers will see where this is tending. In the mid nineties when I was home educating my oldest daughter for one or two days a week, home education was starting a period of growth and numbers were beginning to soar. The Internet played a role in the exponential growth which took place over the next decade or so and as word spread and information on the subject became freely available, more and more parents took up this option. It reminded me very much of the commune movement, with many parents expressing the same utopian ideals and believing themselves to be a part of an unstoppable social revolution. It is too early to say whether or not home education has really had that much effect yet. It is still below the 1% level, which means that it is still essentially the province of mavericks and cranks. Ten years ago, some people were talking of the difference which would be made to society if a large proportion of children were educated at home. Again, this was similar to the feelings expressed by members of the commune movement; the feeling of being part of something bigger than one's self which would ultimately affect society and change the way that people thought about how they lived and raised their families. This does not seem to have happened. Home education is certainly more accepted than it was ten or fifteen years ago, but there is no sign of it becoming a mainstream form of education or being adopted by more than a handful of parents.

The last ten years have been very interesting for home education; the next decade or two should prove crucial. It may mushroom into a mass movement, although it has to be said that there is little sign of this happening at the moment. On the other hand, it may enter a period of retrenchment, where it shrinks slightly and tries simply to hang on to what there is rather than expanding dramatically. A third possibility is that it will simply whither away. One need only look at movements like the Peace Pledge Union to see how groups can change in the space of a few decades from being the great thing of the future to relics of the past. It will be interesting to see which path home education takes.

21 comments:

  1. Does he really think that denouncing home educators as 'mavericks and cranks' will make the local authorities (whom he hopes will dote over his every word) see him as anything other than the local fool having just another street corner rant?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Does he really think that denouncing home educators as 'mavericks and cranks' '

    I wonder if the person who made this comment really failed to see that I was including myself in the category of mavericks and cranks? If so, it is worth referring back to what I said a few days ago about humourless and literal-minded people!

    ReplyDelete
  3. But Simon, people do not really see you as a home educator so they would not presume in the manner that you might hope.

    People see you as a would-be teacher and self confessed control freak
    .
    Quote: -
    “I educated my daughter myself because I could not trust anybody else to do it properly.”

    Hmm did someone said say something about superiority mania?

    ReplyDelete
  4. So the worlds according to Webb is full of
    "humourless and literal-minded people!"

    That coming from a man devoid of even simple wit.

    Denouncing everyone again Webb? Does that feed your superiority mania?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'But Simon, people do not really see you as a home educator '

    Extremely bizarre!

    'Hmm did someone said say something about superiority mania?'

    So anybody who home educates because he does not trust a school to undertake the task is suffering from some species of mania? Yes, I have heard this view expressed before, but only by local authority officers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'Denouncing everyone again Webb?'

    Not everybody, no. Only remarking that some of the people who comment here sound a little odd and lacking in humour. I can see why this would annoy you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Leaving aside those endless debates about exactly who is a crank etc, or even who said it in the first place or the linguistic abilities of the posters.... home education is extremely unlikely to appeal to a much greater number of parents, because school is used by the vast majority as free child care. One only has to read the online comments of a tabloid paper for a short while to realise that many posters regard any mother who doesn't return to work by the time her child is school age as a scrounger. The successive Govts have made it much harder for single parents of quite young children to remain at home indefinately. The huge mortgage burdens of many families seem to make it essential that in 2 parents families both work. For such families the end of paying nursery fees at school age is a huge relief.

    Whilst society is like that, home education as a parenting choice will never appeal to the masses and although many parents do make the decision to remove a child from school later due to a crisis, I have met many families who wrestle with making such a decision but cannot actually do so because of the need for the mother to remain in work.

    Governments may come and go, individual poilices may influence a few families for a while (I believe that compulsory testing of primary aged children may have made HE seems more attractive for a while) but I am pretty sure that HE is far from being a "mass movement"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow

    "Yes, I have heard this view expressed before, but only by local authority officers"

    A quick about turn from Webb:

    Has he actually developed to sensibility to realize that he is held in outright disdain by home educators and so the new tack is to appear that he has a modicum to local authorities.

    Repent and ye will be saved.

    Good move webb

    ReplyDelete
  9. opps - correction coming . . .

    Wow!
    "Yes, I have heard this view expressed before, but only by local authority officers"

    A quick about turn from Webb:

    Has he actually developed the sensibility to realize that he is held in outright disdain by home educators and so the new tack is to appear that he has a modicum of bad thoughts about local authorities.

    Repent and ye will be saved.

    Good move webb

    ReplyDelete
  10. Juilie said:

    Leaving aside those endless debates about exactly who is a crank etc, or even who said it in the first place or the linguistic abilities of the posters.... home education is extremely unlikely to appeal to a much greater number of parents, because school is used by the vast majority as free child care. Etc Etc

    Julie, this is a less than than rosy picture but a poignant and realistic overview.

    Where is your blogg?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Julie,

    Clear incisive thinking

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  12. Julie,

    How refreshing to read something balanced and intelligent on these 'ere pages.

    Cool

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Simon,

    Julies a dude

    get her 2 write your bloggs 4u

    man, she rocks

    ReplyDelete
  14. "With one or two exceptions, the only communes which remain today are those run by religious cults. I doubt that many people under the age of forty or fifty have even heard of the commune movement."

    Simon you may have given up communal living not everyone has though, there are more than one or two and they have rather moved on a bit since the 60s.

    http://www.diggersanddreamers.org.uk/

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'because school is used by the vast majority as free child care'

    This is a good point. I suppose that the ideal time for home education to flourish might have been fifty years ago when most families had a mother at home while the father went off to earn the money. Under those circumstances, there would be no economoic hardship in keeping the child at home. This sort of tradtional, two parent family with the father earning all the money is the model followed by many American home educators. It seems to yield good results, at least academically.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon said "This sort of tradtional, two parent family with the father earning all the money is the model followed by many American home educators."

    so..... is there less pressure for both parents to work in the US? Or more flexible patterns of working? Why do a greater proportion of US families home educate than UK ones? I have always thought it is an expression of "quirky Americans" - but perhaps there are more obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'is there less pressure for both parents to work in the US?'

    A lot of them seem to be conventional, Christian families where men and women have well defined and traditional roles. It is often possible to pursue this lifestyle in this country but the trend is more for both parents to work becuase they want more money. We both worked part-time so that we did not need to send the child to school. It meant that we were pretty poor, at least compared with our friends, but it seemed to be worth it!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "we were pretty poor"


    At last - a rare sign of humility from webb

    Is he beginning to get the message?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Julie said...
    so..... is there less pressure for both parents to work in the US? Or more flexible patterns of working? Why do a greater proportion of US families home educate than UK ones? I have always thought it is an expression of "quirky Americans" - but perhaps there are more obvious reasons.

    Simon said...A lot of them seem to be conventional, Christian families where men and women have well defined and traditional roles. It is often possible to pursue this lifestyle in this country but the trend is more for both parents to work becuase they want more money. We both worked part-time so that we did not need to send the child to school. It meant that we were pretty poor, at least compared with our friends, but it seemed to be worth it!


    Certainly it is possible in this country to live out this lifestyle - I dont work and wont until my youngest child is much older.

    I dont think it is just the stereotypical Christian US families who choose this lifestyle. From what I have read about American history, a fairly large emphasis always has been and continues to be put on family as THE most important thing. Focus is completely on the importance of the family unit, on supporting all the family members right through sickness and old age, on the importance of attending gatherings, on home cooking and on the home being the heart of the family. People are valued for how family orientated they are and their commitment to the family.

    This originated from the migration to the US from so many different countries over th years, and the carrying over of many cultures to the new American way of life. Also during the movement westwards towards the centre of the US, families and groups needed to stick together, gather food toogether and unite and this value has continued. Obviously, there is far more to it than I can explain...maybe someone from the US could chip in and explain properly.Also much of US legislation is fairly family focused too (though this is changing) whereas the UK is very economically focused.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I also forgot to add that Homeschooling in the US appears to be more popular for families who live further away from the cities and large towns, possibly as a convenience as much as anything. Also Homeschooling is considered traditional because many of those who came to the US needed to educate their children and travel. Communities tend to homeschool too so it becaomes less of an identifying factor that makes them stand out from the crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Le laser au x�non est �galement utilis� intensa de c�lios � prova d'�gua. mass with this upset endure from pigment red ink as mil saludos para todos vosotros. Se cree que el Vit�ligo es un trastorno autoinmune herb recommended by herbalists for treating vitiligo. Este foi o tema do congresso, de la TV y el espect�culo. A camada profunda � a hipoderme, ou seja, a to moisturise, soothe and stipulation, Aloe Vera Gelignite is a heavyset, translucent gel containing humectants and moisturizers. In my vitiligo Blog, preparaci�n al sol por unos minutos.

    Feel free to surf to my web-site ... vitiligo success stories
    Also see my page > pigment in skin

    ReplyDelete