Two people made comments yesterday which really tie in neatly together. One person had found, like me, that even with a structured and planned education, it could all be done in a few hours in the morning, leaving the rest of the day free for other things. Another person remarked that I had mentioned the teaching of facts and skills, but not mentioned the value of experiences in a child's education. The fault is definitely mine here, because I have not explored this idea before.
I must say at once that I was an extremely structured home educator, who worked to a dozen syllabuses at once. Nevertheless, I found as others had before me, that I could cover all this by working hard in the morning and then spending the afternoon doing whatever my daughter might want. In addition to that, there were many days when we did no academic work at all; just went out exploring. I regard those expeditions as having been just as valuable a part of my child's education as was studying physics and chemistry.
As a matter of fact, my daughter saw and did far more than any other child of her age. This is the great thing about home education; the freedom to go anywhere with one's child and expose her to things which she would not do if she were stuck in a classroom all day. What sort of things am I talking about here? I have very strong views on the way that gender roles are moulded by the environment and so I took particular care that she should be doing and seeing things which were not gender specific. Not for us the lace exhibition in the Victoria and Albert Museum! Shooting, for instance. By the age of seven she had fired shotguns, air rifles, crossbows and bows and arrows. At one time, she was considering joining a rifle club. She took up fencing and quickly gravitated towards sabres; which are traditionally only used by males. We visited the Imperial War Museum in London a good deal, as well as the National Army Museum and RAF Museum. HMS Belfast, the warship in the Thames was also favourite. When she took the IGCSE in history, she had to choose which topics she specialised in. She chose World War I and the Changing nature of Twentieth Century Warfare! She is the only young woman I have ever known who could discuss the Schlieffan Plan intelligently or explain how the Fokker Interrupter Gear works.
When she was under five and we lived in Tottenham in north London, I had a season ticket to London Zoo. We used to go there most weeks, as well as many other zoos and aquaria. By her fifth birthday, she had stroked, held, fed from her hand or touched an elephant, giraffe, rhinoceros, tiger, wolf, zebra, reindeer, camel, crocodile, tapir, owl, python, penguin, tarantula and dozens of other species. It used to be a point of honour to see which animals we could get near at zoos. Stroking the tiger and wolf entailed climbing over safety barriers and getting chucked out of one zoo, but boy it was worth it! This is experience.
And don't even get me started on mines and caves. A coal mine, iron mine, lead mine, cave systems, potholing; she absolutley adored going underground. All this was when she was five or six.
I have not gone into this aspect of her education in detail before, because I rather took it for granted that most home educated children were raised this way. I am aware that some do not get as much formal teaching as my own daughter got, but I assume that most spend a lot of time out of doors like this. I am not sure if all this would have been a sufficient education in itself, but it was certainly a valuable part of the education which my daughter received. When she was a baby, I used to joke to my wife that by the time our daughter reached puberty, I wanted her to be able to use a sword, handle a gun, ride and take communion regularly. I have to report that she did so. I saw these things as being just as important as knowing about ionic bonding in molecules or how photosynthesis works!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, you actually sound like a normal home educator in this post. Kidding!
ReplyDeleteWe also work in the mornings four days a week, in a very structured fashion. We have clubs/group etc in the afternoon and take regular trips to museums, NT/EH properties, galleries, zoos etc. Certainly schooled kids dont get these kind of opportunities and this is the real beauty of HE.
Experience and hands-on learning are just as important in my opinion as any bookwork. The two really do go hand in hand.
Maybe this is why schools generally are seen to be failing; because they dont give enough time to hands on learnings - its all bookwork and targets.
I absolutely love this post. We too work for a few hours in the morning, quite intensively on whatever topic we are working on at the time. Which, as you say, leaves our afternoons free.
ReplyDeleteIt is only through experience - I believe - that we actually learn, hands on and really in the thick of it.
I know in the time of Nero, it was said "Christians to the lion" - but I am not so sure about the significance of tigers!
ReplyDeleteOtherwise I entirely agree with you - home education is a wonderful opportunity to allow children to have a rich cultural and educational experience. This can spill over into the actual book learning too - when my dd was primary age, we spent a whole year "doing" Tudors because it allowed us to gallivant around visiting a lot of Tudor buildings ect and spend a weekend in Stratford etc, plus seeing Shakespeare in the theatre.
I think that is where sometimes you and I, Simon disagree; some families may not be as thorough with " book learning" - but they do give their children a rich learning experience in the wider sense, and although it might not be the way I would do it, the children turn out pretty happy and resourceful. The children I can think of may not be amazing at algebra but they can skin a rabbit, put on a Shakespeare play and make bread, and they all seem to go happily off into artistic type careers or into agricultural pursuits.
The ones I worry about are those who are neither challenged academically or socially and who live dull boring lives where the only form of entertainment is the television. I can think of one girl who later wrote that I had changed her life - by taking her to see the film "High School Musical" - which is a pretty sad reflection on her life experinces until then. That is where home ed group support can be invaluable - - only this week I have seen trips to the ballet, Shakespeare plays, Intech Planetarium and HMS Victory advertised on our local list..alongside swimming, ice skating, formal tution groups and art lessons. All these run at very cheap rates and the outside visits pay schools rates which are much cheaper. I hope that this encourages those families who lack the resources to arrange these things individually to participate and expose their children to a wider experience.
This was an interesting post indeed. One of the most enjoyable aspects of a home educated life in this town is the increased opportunity to meet many interesting people of all sorts - at home ed specific events and by participating in the wider cultural life of the place. My children have benefited from that a great deal, I think.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it is perfectly possible to have many such experiences if you go to school but you are restricted by school hours and the demands of homework and so on. I have often also observed that home educated children and teens tend to be pretty confident at cultural and community events about talking to people of all ages - perhaps more so than many schooled children.
It took us quite a while to leave the creative writing performance that we attended (and in some cases took part in)yesterday evening because our teen was chatting with a performance poet about home education.
I suppose where I would probably differ from you, Simon, is that I don't assume that any 'book work' my children do is necessarily of greater importance than a good conversation with someone, the opportunity to attend an interesting talk or a couple of hours involved an imaginary game with a dozen other home educated children in the park. It's all part of the mix. That my children can alter the balance between different activities in their lives, pick things up and put them down, explore different avenues - all that is part of the reason why we home educate as we do.
Julie says-The ones I worry about are those who are neither challenged academically or socially and who live dull boring lives where the only form of entertainment is the television.
ReplyDeleteIf you know of any children who live like this you have a duty to report their parents to the LA why have you not done this?
'I have often also observed that home educated children and teens tend to be pretty confident at cultural and community events about talking to people of all ages - perhaps more so than many schooled children.'
ReplyDeleteThis is because associating with anybody a year or two older or younger than those in your class at school invites ridicule or diasapproval for schoolchildren. They are also expected to address adults in the school as Sir or Miss; thus inculcating a very weird and archaic attitude.
There is some evidence that children educated at home have better social skills than those who are schooled. (Rudner 1999, Achievements and demographics of Home School Students, Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 7 No. 8 and also Shyers 1992, Comparison of Social Adjustment between Home and Tradionally Schooled Students, University of Florida Ph.D Dissertation)
' I suppose where I would probably differ from you, Simon, is that I don't assume that any 'book work' my children do is necessarily of greater importance than a good conversation with someone, the opportunity to attend an interesting talk or a couple of hours involved an imaginary game with a dozen other home educated children in the park.'
I don't think we differ at all on this point, Allie. I regard these things as being very important too. Formal qualifications can be more useful though for getting on in later life. The primary educational tool upon which I relied was conversation, not books.
Great post generally, as others have said. I'm a bit confused about your support for limiting formal education to the mornings though:
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
"One person had found, like me, that even with a structured and planned education, it could all be done in a few hours in the morning, leaving the rest of the day free for other things."
Because you ridiculed someone for suggesting that formal study should be limited to 12 hours per week less than a month ago.
"I am aware that some do not get as much formal teaching as my own daughter got, but I assume that most spend a lot of time out of doors like this. I am not sure if all this would have been a sufficient education in itself, but it was certainly a valuable part of the education which my daughter received."
If it were limited just to (the wonderful) trips you describe I might agree. But often the trips will trigger an interest in a subject that is researched further using library books, the Internet, arranging contact with people who know more about a subject, relevant classes or courses either correspondence or in person, etc, etc. Obviously I can't speak for other autonomously educating families, but our children's education quite naturally involves significant amounts of "book learning", as Julie phrases it.
I meant to add, we used trips to stimulate ideas for further study, to allow our children to find their interests, not as an end in themselves.
ReplyDeleteSimon Webb said...The primary educational tool upon which I relied was conversation, not books.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. The art of reading and writing is important, no doubt. But not so much as the art of conversation.
Knowing how to convey your thoughts and opinions to another of any age/race/status etc is something fewer and fewer people place much importance on these days.
With the advent of email, forums and other techy methods of communication the skill of being able to acurately verbalise something appears to have fallen to the dogs.
These are the skills which are not taught in school. When you take a group of children, all of the same age, the opportunity to expand on lines of different conversation dwindle massively.
It is nothing these days to hear children only talking about what happened in school that day, or what they have seen on television. It's a very narrow scope of communication as far as I am concerned, and one which will narrow their chances of achieving anything beyond it in later years.
'Because you ridiculed someone for suggesting that formal study should be limited to 12 hours per week less than a month ago.'
ReplyDeleteThis hinges around the definition of 'formal study'. I shall be posting about this in the next few days.
"This hinges around the definition of 'formal study'. I shall be posting about this in the next few days."
ReplyDeleteI think you may have mis-read the email if you think the writer included GCSE Astronomy within their formal study hours. The writer mentioned school type subjects in connection with the 12 hours and the Astronomy when mentioning the children's own interest pursued after formal study. Her links included Singapore Maths (with various Key Stage maths and science books) and "the leading publisher of educational textbooks for pupils studying at independent schools".
'I think you may have mis-read the email if you think the writer included GCSE Astronomy within their formal study hours.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I know all this. As I say, I shall be posting about this in the next day or two.
The point is Simon, you did not have enough information to justify ridiculing someone who, based on the information provided, appears to follow a similar schedule to you.
ReplyDelete'The point is Simon, you did not have enough information to justify ridiculing someone who, based on the information provided, appears to follow a similar schedule to you.'
ReplyDeleteNot every joke means ridiculing somebody. Saying of an astronomy GCSE, 'Just what employers are looking for' is a joke. I think most of us are robust enough to accept that others will not always take us and our aspirations seriously. I dare say that people could make jokes about the course of education which I have provided for my child. I might not feel ridiculed though. Have you reason to suppose that this woman was offended by this remark of mine or are you appropriating her supposed distress in order to score a debating point here?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Not every joke means ridiculing somebody. Saying of an astronomy GCSE, 'Just what employers are looking for' is a joke."
Are you being intentionally obtuse to misdirect attention from the original meaning of my comment, or does it just come naturally to you? The ridicule of someone recommending a similar regimen appears directly before the quote you selected:
Simon wrote previously,
"Other advice on offer is equally mischievous, although I am sure not intentionally so. One mother recommends a maximum of twelve hours a week once the education actually starts."
Suggesting that the recommendation of a maximum of 12 hours for formal study is mischievous sounds very strange when it comes from someone who followed a very similar regimen.
You then go on to say that she made no mention of any educational benefit accrued by the change in education venue (after quoting her saying that her children were far happier), yet she clearly stated that, her children were easily covering the subjects they would have learnt in school and also had plenty of time to pursue their own interests.
So not only did you ridicule someone for recommending the approach you used, you also misrepresented what they had said about their children's education!
Simon wrote,
"or are you appropriating her supposed distress in order to score a debating point here?"
I doubt she even realised you had quoted her post and ridiculed her in the process, I was just interested in the way you twist information to suit your current argument. But this comment is rich coming from the person who originally used the writers words in order to ridicule them and make a point that isn't even supported when the message is seen in full. Selective quoting at its worst.
'You then go on to say that she made no mention of any educational benefit accrued by the change in education venue (after quoting her saying that her children were far happier)'
ReplyDeleteYou are muddling up two people here and without my quoting the whole sequence of posts, I see no way of maker this clear and putting what I said in context. As I said, I shall be posting on this topic soon. I am obliged to you Anonymous for injecting an adversarial tone to this thread and bringing it back to normal! I was becoming quite uneasy at the good natured tone of some of the comments before yours.
"You are muddling up two people here and without my quoting the whole sequence of posts, I see no way of maker this clear and putting what I said in context."
ReplyDeleteOh, I see, your wrote about two emails from the email list in the same para. Sorry for my mistake.
However, you still describe the recommendation to cover the equivalent of a school education over 12 hours a week leaving the rest of the time free for personal interests as 'mischievous'. Yet this is virtually the same system you describe in this blog article. Are you also being mischievous by describing such a system? Or is it acceptable when you do it?
"I am obliged to you Anonymous for injecting an adversarial tone to this thread and bringing it back to normal!"
I asking for clarification about contradictory blog articles. I suppose if someone doesn't want to explain their contradictory messages (or my misunderstanding of past posts if that is the case) it might be experienced as antagonistic.
"I was becoming quite uneasy at the good natured tone of some of the comments before yours."
ReplyDeleteI did agree that it was a great post and said how wonderful the trips sounded. I also explained how we use trips in our family. The request for clarification was a minor part of my original comment but the only bit you seem interested in commenting on. But if you were feeling uneasy without the adversarial tone, maybe you found what you were looking for?
'I asking for clarification about contradictory blog articles. I suppose if someone doesn't want to explain their contradictory messages (or my misunderstanding of past posts if that is the case) it might be experienced as antagonistic.'
ReplyDeleteWe have just been through a huge debate here about the ethics of copying posts from other lists and blogs. I thought it tactful to avoid doing this for a little while! Describing your comment as adversarial was by no means a criticism. Rows of this sort are meat and drink to me and I am always happy to oblige!
Scurrilous Webb writes in yet another admission of guilt:-
ReplyDelete"We have just been through a huge debate here about the ethics of copying posts from other lists and blogs. I thought it tactful to avoid doing this for a little while!"
Tactful or are you becoming aware of the law? If so, you are too late for that now.
'Tactful or are you becoming aware of the law? If so, you are too late for that now.'
ReplyDeleteAware of what law? That relating to copyright? I have, I think, a better grasp of this than many of my citics!
According to some authorities, the agreement we accept on joining an email list (which generally includes not repeating emails elsewhere) is a contract between you and the listowner, so maybe you (or whoever forwarded the messages to you) is breaking contract law?
ReplyDelete'so maybe you (or whoever forwarded the messages to you) is breaking contract law?'
ReplyDeleteI think that you will find that Mike Fortune-Wood looked into this and found that that particular cock won't fight!
What makes you think he checked that out?
ReplyDeleteThis is a quote from a legal web site:
"One technique is to make each subscriber agree to a set of terms as a condition of joining, before they can participate. This is viewed as a contract between the list or blog owner and the subscriber, and the subscriber’s participation can be terminated if the rules are violated."
This is a US site and I don't know how similar UK contract law is to US law, but it sounds like the agreement on joining a list is viewed as a legal contract.
BTW, I think it's highly unlikely and probably undesirable for anyone to take legal action over this. I just find the idea (contract law) interesting, it's not my intention to stir things up or annoy people.
ReplyDelete