I have lately been reading an interesting book which denounces school. It is called School is Dead and was written by an associate of Ivan Illich's called Everett Reimer. It is not a new book; it was published in 1971. The thesis is that schools are little more than tools of capitalist society and that they are useless for education.
Most of the ideologues of home education, those who provide the theoretical underpinning for the practice, are American. I am thinking of Gatto and Holt, the Moores and so on. Their influence though has heavily permeated the British home educating scene and this is a shame. I say this because the core idea expounded by these people is essentially that schools are bad. This negative idea, that 'Schools are bad' seems to have a lot more strength for many home educating parents in this country than does the positive one of 'Home education is good'. In other words, one often gets more of a sense of home educators in this country being anti-school than one does of their being pro-home education.
Now I dare say that a lot of this is caused by the fact that many home educating parents have taken their children out of school following a series of bad experiences; bullying, failure to meet some special educational need and so on. This sort of thing is bound to give one a jaded view of schools. I don't think though that this can be the whole explanation to the trend which one sees of a lot of parents who are not just anti-school, but anti-traditional education in general. Not only do they reject school, they also reject formal qualifications and anything which smacks at all of teaching. This attitude manifests itself in the delight which some home educating parents openly express when a paedophile ring is unmasked at a nursery, or a child dies of an asthma attack because the teacher didn't give him his inhaler at once. In other words, they are pleased about these events because it all goes to show what dreadful places schools are and how wise they have been to take their children from them.
Now I may be wrong, and I am happy to be corrected here, but I fancy that those who do not send their children to school in the first place for ideological reasons are less apt to this wholesale condemnation of school. This would be logical really. if your child has never come home in tears after being bullied by another child or humiliated by a teacher, I suppose you might be able to view school through rose tinted lenses and kid yourself that it's not that bad really. I am certainly not in the least opposed to the institution of school as such. I am aware that it does not suit everybody, which is why I am glad that parents have the option in this country to educate their own children if they wish to do so. I take it as given that children in general need to be educated in reading and writing and taught various things. Schools are a convenient and cost effective way of achieving that end. And it has to be said, most children seem to like school well enough. It does not seem to do them any harm and in most cases actually teaches them a good deal.
I think it a pity that we are compelled to rely upon Americans for our theories of home education. I have of course read the books of people like Jan Fortune-Wood, but they lack the clarity and intellectual strength of John Holt or Raymond and Dorothy Moore's writing. Alan Thomas is better, but still does not quite hit the spot. It would be good to see a British John Holt emerge. I have an idea that the anti-school, anti-examination, anti-teaching and anti-many other aspects of formal education view which is so common among home educators in this country is not doing anybody any favours with the establishment. Most civil servants and MPs, as well as local authority officers, learn about the rationale behind British home education from the internet. If they constantly see things which suggest that parents are motivated by dislike of schools and determination not to teach or enter children for GCSEs, it is liable to alarm them. Actually, it alarms me and you could hardly hope to find a more dedicated home educator than me! When MPs and civil servants become alarmed, their instinctive reaction is to restrict or end some activity, so this could have practical consequences.
Roland Meighan?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Meighan is that he is also bitterly opposed to schools; 'Schools are seriously limiting, seriously damaging institutions.' He reads very much like Gatto and Holt!
ReplyDelete"I don't think though that this can be the whole explanation to the trend which one sees of a lot of parents who are not just anti-school, but anti-traditional education"
ReplyDeleteI agree. When I withdrew my son from school, I was quite unimpressed with the standard of teaching he had been receiving. There were fundamental things I felt really should be taught but weren't within the NC. I found it increasingly hard to justify the 6+ hours he spent there. There were also other irritating issues with the school. But that does not mean I am now completely anti all schools, or anti formal learning. I acknowledge that my choosing to HE is a positive educational choice and just one of a diverse number of educational approaches. As long as it works for us we will continue; school is still an option we may one day end up considering. When people who do not HE encounter a HE parent who is vehemently and completely anti-schools and anti-formal learning it only provokes a defensive response (since often their own children go to school) and makes HE seem like some kind of weird fringe activity. I rather think it would be better to acknowledge that HE is just one educational choice parents can make among many: when it works well it can be very efficient and great fun. When school works well it can also be efficient and fun for others.
"I fancy that those who do not send their children to school in the first place for ideological reasons are less apt to this wholesale condemnation of school"
Not sure about that. I would have thought they were prone to dislike the educational methods utilised by schools, but I could be wrong.
"It would be good to see a British John Holt emerge"
Why? Aren't the philosphies of people such as JH and TG often held up as a justification for being completely anti-school and anti-formal learning? You seem to contradict yourself here, or perhaps I miss something.
'This attitude manifests itself in the delight which some home educating parents openly express when a paedophile ring is unmasked at a nursery, or a child dies of an asthma attack because the teacher didn't give him his inhaler at once. In other words, they are pleased about these events because it all goes to show what dreadful places schools are and how wise they have been to take their children from them.'
ReplyDeleteOh, you know, I see that attitude here sometimes, Simon, in the delight you take reporting the occasional abuse of a HE'd child. usually in the US.
I didn't rely on anyone's theory of education when I rescued my small child from an intolerable situation at school. I suppose what I was relying on was my maternal instincts, that a 5 year old diagnosed with depression, anxiety and OCD needed a safer envirnment. BTW, this child an adult now and has none of those problems any more.
ReplyDeleteEven so, I don't believe schools are evil places. They just don't suit everyone.
'Even so, I don't believe schools are evil places. They just don't suit everyone.'
ReplyDeletePretty much my own view.
' I rather think it would be better to acknowledge that HE is just one educational choice parents can make among many: when it works well it can be very efficient and great fun. When school works well it can also be efficient and fun for others.'
ReplyDeleteThis too sums up how I see the matter.
I don't recognise your description of British HE in the UK at all. A few people are vehemently against school because their child was damaged by school, but it is only a few. A few may be vehemently against formal teaching, but maybe they are parents of quite young children who are unlikely to actively choose to be educated formally (though obviously this isn't unknown), and again, it must only a few as I've not met any with this view. Are these parent's following some particular education style or philosophy (like Steiner, for instance), because it's not one I recognise (the automatic rejection of formal education whatever the child wants).
ReplyDeleteThe majority of UK parents use a mixed approach, combining parent-led with child-led education. A minority at one end are completely parent-led and a minority a the other are completely child-led, the usual 'normal distribution'. Where are you getting your views about HE in the UK from, Simon? All the research I've read and the contact with hundreds of home educators at local groups and camps over 15+ years contradicts your view of HE in the UK.
I wonder if you are listening to the 'vociferous few' you have mentioned in the past. People whose child has been damaged by school are likely to be angry and need to let off steam. They are likely to dominate an email list during this period because they need lots of support. Likewise for anyone who holds extreme views about education because they are more likely to come into conflict with those around them (LA officials, family, etc) and need support. It makes sense that the people you describe will need to turn to HE lists for support much more than the middle-of-the-road majority will ever need to. Also, it may be difficult for those with a minority view to find anyone local who holds similar views. The ability to meet and talk with like minded individuals from across the country and for those holding minority views even within a minority group like home educators is one of the beauties of the Internet. Or maybe, the home educators you come into contact with through your work are a sub-group that are different to most other HEers. These are the only explanations I can come up with for your warped view of HE.
"In other words, they are pleased about these events because it all goes to show what dreadful places schools are and how wise they have been to take their children from them."
ReplyDeleteSo you don't look at how well your HE child has done compared to many others and feel justified in your choices as a result? You think your daughter would have done just as well at school?
"The problem with Meighan is that he is also bitterly opposed to schools; 'Schools are seriously limiting, seriously damaging institutions.' He reads very much like Gatto and Holt!"
ReplyDeleteYou said: 'It would be good to see a British John Holt emerge." Now you tell me Meighan is a problem because he reads like Holt.
Personally, I wouldn't compare either Holt or Meighan to Gatto.
'So you don't look at how well your HE child has done compared to many others and feel justified in your choices as a result? You think your daughter would have done just as well at school?'
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. I have a suspicion that my daughter would have done well in a decent school, but it is impossible to say. There would have been advantages at school that she was denied at home and vice versa. So I suppose that she would have turned out differently, but we can't say whether this would have been a better or worse outcome. Probably neither; just... different.
'I wonder if you are listening to the 'vociferous few' you have mentioned in the past. '
ReplyDeleteWell of course, that's always possible. the popularity of John Holt's books though suggests to me that he is a strong influence on home education in this country. There are other factors which indicate that home edcuators have a different view of education to most other parents. For instance, the fact that when figures to become available, as they did in Dudley a little while ago, it seems that home educated parents are less apt to enter their children for GCSEs. None of this is definite, but might point in the direction of which I was talking.
"I have a suspicion that my daughter would have done well in a decent school, but it is impossible to say."
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's the difference? If you live in an area where the school is very poor and you are unable to move to an area with a better school (or to afford travel costs) you will have a different view of schools to someone who can pick and choose.
'Maybe that's the difference? If you live in an area where the school is very poor and you are unable to move to an area with a better school (or to afford travel costs) you will have a different view of schools to someone who can pick and choose.'
ReplyDeleteWell that's possible. I have never lived near any decent schools though and yet am still aware that many people are happy with sending their kids to what I would regard as very poor places to be educated. It does not tell me anything about the principle of sending children to school though; merely that we have never been able to afford to live in a decent area!
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"This negative idea, that 'Schools are bad' seems to have a lot more strength for many home educating parents in this country than does the positive one of 'Home education is good'. In other words, one often gets more of a sense of home educators in this country being anti-school than one does of their being pro-home education."
and Simon wrote,
"Well of course, that's always possible. the popularity of John Holt's books though suggests to me that he is a strong influence on home education in this country."
It seems logical to me that if a parent chooses to send their child to school and then runs into problems they will have negative feelings about school as a result, how could it be otherwise? It's also unsurprising that harm caused by school might lead to the discovery of Holt. If a parent sees their child being harmed by school and then recognises the description of that harm and the process that may have caused it when they start looking around for solutions they are likely to take notice of his theories.
But why would you see anti-school feelings as negative? Do you see the diagnosis of a disease and the ensuing treatment as negative? The disease is negative, sure, but the treatment is positive. The anti-school feeling is part of the cure. Obviously the same processes can work before choosing to use schools and result in HE from the beginning (as it did for us), and maybe we feel less strongly against school because our child has not been harmed by it, but we are still anti-school because we think they and the methods they use are harmful to children.
"I don't think though that this can be the whole explanation to the trend which one sees of a lot of parents who are not just anti-school, but anti-traditional education in general. Not only do they reject school, they also reject formal qualifications and anything which smacks at all of teaching."
If the parent believes that the methods used in schools contributed to harming their child, why would they want to reproduce the same methods at home? Any sensible person would look for alternatives. However, I still don't recognise your description of rejection of formal qualifications and anything that smacks of teaching. It's certainly not a description of AE which is your usual target for attack. Where are these home educators you speak of?
"Well that's possible. I have never lived near any decent schools though and yet am still aware that many people are happy with sending their kids to what I would regard as very poor places to be educated."
ReplyDeleteEveryone is going to have their own definition of a decent school and by extension, a suitable education. Hence the problems some people have with the idea of LA visits. You obviously disagree about the definition of a suitable education with the vast majority of your neighbours. Do you really want the majority to decide what a suitable education looks like?
"Actually, it alarms me and you could hardly hope to find a more dedicated home educator than me!"
ReplyDeleteYou say that as though we should be surprised. You appear to find anything that doesn't look like your style of HE alarming You are just one step removed from those who find anything that isn't school alarming.
"I think it a pity that we are compelled to rely upon Americans for our theories of home education."
ReplyDeleteThis is too limiting. Whey think about 'theories of home education' instead of 'theories of education'? We discovered the most suitable education theory/method for our children, then we looked at how to provide it, not the other way around. If a suitable school had been available we would have considered it.
'However, I still don't recognise your description of rejection of formal qualifications and anything that smacks of teaching. It's certainly not a description of AE which is your usual target for attack. Where are these home educators you speak of?'
ReplyDeleteAll over local groups. Get real.
'All over local groups. Get real.'
ReplyDeleteThank you Anonymous; I was beginning to doubt the evidence of my senses!
"All over local groups. Get real."
ReplyDeleteI've been a member of 5 groups over 15+ years and have attended lots of HE camps and have not seen this. I've seen autonomous educators who only teach if the child wants to be taught, is this what you are seeing? I have also seen home educators who leave qualifications until the child is old enough for college or choose alternatives to GCSEs if that is what the child wants. This behaviour has not resulted in poor outcomes, quite the contrary.
Are you saying that there are home educators who refuse to teach a child and who wants to be taught and does not help them to learn in any other way? Do they refuse to help a child with GCSEs who wants to take them? Can you describe a few examples so we can get an idea of what you mean.
"I think it a pity that we are compelled to rely upon Americans for our theories of home education."
ReplyDeleteCharlotte Mason?
Autonomous education was developed from Karl Popper's ideas. He was Austro-British.
ReplyDeleteTaking Children Seriously was founded by Sarah Fitz-Claridge and David Deutsch. Both British, well mostly.
Hmmmm...
ReplyDeleteSF-C was involved in trying to abolish the age of consent and promoted the same manifesto as the Paedophile Information Exchange.