A regular complaint from some home educating parents is that their local authority wishes to visit them and discuss the education which they are providing for their child. Failing that, an increasing number are now asking to see samples of the child's work. Why won't they just accept the word of the parents for what is going on? Why do they wish to check for themselves?
The answers to these questions are pretty obvious to everybody except home educators. First, parents seldom tell, or even know, the unvarnished truth about their own kids. One rarely meets a parent who says that her child is spiteful and sly or admits that her son is a bully. Similarly, most parents try to put a gloss on their child's academic achievements. They usually want to pretend that their children are doing better than is actually the case. This is not limited of course to home educating parents; it is a pretty general thing. Parents are really very unreliable witnesses when it comes to telling other people what their children are like. How could it be otherwise? We are not, nor should we be, objective about our own children. For this reason, local authority officers tend to take the educational philosophies, diaries and photographs which home educating parents send them with a large pinch of salt. They would rather see work which the child himself has done or ideally speak to him in person.
They are right to be cautious about accepting at face value what they are told by parents. Some of the most vociferous advocates of informal education, parents who resolutely refuse to do anything at all in the way of formal, school-type work, often make the most ludicrous claims to their local authority about what they are doing. This is done to keep the local authority from asking too many questions. This is especially common when the child has a special need and the parents are anxious to avoid the involvement of other agencies. Local authorities sometimes get uneasy that SEN children's needs are not being met by education at home. They are perfectly aware that many parents spin them tall stories about the sort of education which their child is receiving and the wonderful achievements of the kid now he is out of school. In short, some home educators lie their heards off about what their children are achieving.
On several of the home education lists is an aggressive woman from the village of Eardisley in Herefordshire who is a very strong advocate of not allowing the local authority to visit. She regularly advises other parents to be firm in refusing visits and tells them that they do not need to show anybody the child's work or provide anything but the minimum of information about the education being provided. Her own son's education consists, by his mother's own account, largely of watching television, spending time on the internet and talking to his mother. So far, so good; a fairly typical case. However, what she tells the local authority is so completely at odds with this that one cannot help but wonder if it is the same person! Last year when her son was twelve, she claimed that he would be taking eight GCSEs within a year; even repeating this ridiculous story to the local paper. Eight GCSEs at the age of twelve! Even a mad, fanatically structured home educator like me would think twice about this!
This is admittedly an extreme case, but none the less not uncommon in that a mother who provides only the sketchiest education is claiming to be teaching her child with a view to taking formal examinations. Local authorities come across this a lot and one way that they can find out is really happening is to chat to the child and see what he says he is studying. It is this desire to know what is happening on the educational front which lies at the heart of many requests for visits. Speaking for myself, I seldom take anything a parent tells me about her kid at face value . A lot of mothers think that their children are unrecognised geniuses and few parents spot character traits like cruelty or dishonesty in their own kids. Strangers can often form a better and more accurate opinion about a child's capabilities and potential than can the child's parents.
Old Webb Says-On several of the home education lists is an aggressive woman from the village of Eardisley in Herefordshire who is a very strong advocate of not allowing the local authority to visit. She regularly advices other parents to be firm in refusing visits and tells them that they do not need to show anybody the child's work or provide anything but the minimum of information about the education being provided.
ReplyDeleteWe also advise not to allow any one from the LA to vist your house or have any meetings with them.
We have never had a meeting with them or shown them any of the education our son is receving
She not the only one who wont have meetings with her LA and why would you when the LA's treat you like dirt and wont resolve what caused the problem in the 1st place! so some of us are bloody angry and will NEVER allow them into our house!
"Last year when her son was twelve, she claimed that he would be taking eight GCSEs within a year; even repeating this ridiculous story to the local paper."
ReplyDeleteOur local paper is not be relied on for accuracy, Simon. Have you considered that this might have been a mis-quote?
What I can't get is why you think it is *necessary* for someone else to assess the child. I do not need an authority to come and assess my level before I do a job of work - if I am not up to it (and cannot tell that myself), the client will not use me again and may even refuse to pay.
ReplyDeleteIf someone did go to the press and say that a 12yo was preparing for 8 GCSEs but this was not true, I'd think it very odd (but then I try to avoid deliberate lying). However, it would not necessarily mean that the child was not being educated suitable to AA and A.
The point is that parents have the responsibility for care and nurture of children laid upon them by both nature (by physical birth and nurturing) and English law. It is *not* the duty of an LA to ensure either that children are fed an "appropriate diet" or provided with a "suitable education". OTOH, if an LA has reason to believe that either of those things is *not* happening, then it has a duty to investigate.
From one point of view, a parent's assessment of a child as a genius is completely irrelevant - the world will soon sort that out if it is not the case. My DC were EHE because I did not want them to be skewed by a school's irrelevant assessment, which may have been based on family circumstances, postcode and factors other than the child's performance and ability.
Our local paper is not be relied on for accuracy, Simon. Have you considered that this might have been a mis-quote?
ReplyDeleteThis is very true paper TV media often miss quote or do it on purpose to present an issue in the way it wants!
any way they is not going to be any change in the law forcing parents/child to meet with LA's so Webb can write about it as much as he wants but it wont change the fact that you do not have to meet with them or allow them into your house! you lost Webb and Home educators won! your a loser Webb and every one knows it!
"Local authorities sometimes get uneasy that SEN children's needs are not being met by education at home."
ReplyDeleteHow ironic, most PARENTS get uneasy that their SEN children's needs are not being met by education at school.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of children with SEN are most certainly not receiving the appropriate level of support and intervention at school.
Shena said: "I do not need an authority to come and assess my level before I do a job of work - if I am not up to it (and cannot tell that myself), the client will not use me again and may even refuse to pay."...fair enough. But in the case of home ed, if you're doing a crap job and can't tell that yourself, the "client" can't exactly vote with their feet, or not pay you. They're stuck with it- and likely to only find out when it's Too Late.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't think LA officers are infallible, I see no harm in them making annual visits to HE children. While I am sure the majority of home educating parents do an excellent job, I am equally sure that there are yet others who are manifestly incapable of providing anything near as good an education as their child would receive in school. This does need to be flagged up, for the sake of those children. And if this causes some inconvenience- in the form of visits- to those of us (ahem) who are doing a good job, then that's just tough, I reckon.
Decca
If the inspectors were properly trained and qualified then there wouldn't be such a fuss about it all. Too many of them come in with a school mindset, armed with the tickbox worksheet and it takes many years, if ever, to train them into understanding that 1:1 tuition can take a completely different approach to that found in a classroom.
ReplyDeleteDecca said,' I am equally sure that there are yet others who are manifestly incapable of providing anything near as good an education as their child would receive in school.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think you quite understand the situation with home education. Parents do not have to show that they can provide an education 'as good as their child would receive in school', just that they are educating them according to certain principles set out in law.
"While I am sure the majority of home educating parents do an excellent job, I am equally sure that there are yet others who are manifestly incapable of providing anything near as good an education as their child would receive in school."
ReplyDeleteStill can't see why a visit is required. The LA can make informal enquiries and take action if they get no response or an inadequate response. If a parent is able to convince a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities that they are providing a suitable education (the level of evidence required in court) in writing, how likely is it that they are incapable of actually providing the described education? If they can provide the education and say they are, the only reason for a visit is that the LA has decided the parent is lying about providing that education, so guilty until proven innocent.
Also, if someone is capable of writing convincingly about education provision and actually are lying about providing it, how would a visit help? Even testing a child proves nothing as it's entirely possible for a child not to learn even if a suitable education is provided (we only have to look at schools to see this).
"Failing that, an increasing number are now asking to see samples of the child's work. Why won't they just accept the word of the parents for what is going on?"
ReplyDeleteWhat if their education philosophy means that the child does not have to produce 'work' or the family views what the child produces as belonging to the child who is free to choose who he shows it to? Are we, as home educating parents, not allowed to have certain philosophies even if they are accepted in schools? Summerhill, for instance, does not enforce attendance at classes. Should we be held to more restrictive standards than those who can afford a private school?
Anonymous says:
ReplyDelete"I don't think you quite understand the situation with home education. Parents do not have to show that they can provide an education 'as good as their child would receive in school', just that they are educating them according to certain principles set out in law."
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I am aware that the scope of the LA visit is limited (through my own personal experience- I offered to make reams of stuff available to ours, and to get the children to recite and simultaneously translate Goethe whilst playing the shawm standing on their heads, and was sheepishly told "oh, we just want to have a little chat"
inside the remit of the Little Chat, I would hope that any LA professional in the role would be able to identify danger areas- ie if the parent was manifestly incapable of providing an adequate education.
All this begs the question- if the LAs are so easy to satisfy in most cases by folk who are providing adequately for their children, then why not just co-operate with them for an hour every year? I have never, ever gone for the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument in my life, as I think it's a gross oversimplification, but am sorely tempted here!
Decca
Decca
"ll this begs the question- if the LAs are so easy to satisfy in most cases by folk who are providing adequately for their children, then why not just co-operate with them for an hour every year?"
ReplyDeleteBecause some LAs don't like autonomous education for a start. If you look at this spreadsheet of LA responses, https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao_d0FTV62i4dHR3aDZLV1YzZXhYWE5PbHNJd0hJT0E&hl=en#gid=5 and search for 'structure', you will see that quite a few list lack of structure as a cause for concern.
One reason I won't "just co-operate with them for an hour every year" is because I am not obliged to do so. *If* they have cause to think I am not providing an education, *then* they can ask for evidence, etc. Quizzing children does not necessarily say anything about the education - the duty is on the parent to provide, not the DC to consume. LAs incorrectly seem to think that they have a duty to determine "suitability"; some people are afraid that they will be unable to satisfy this test (partially because the criteria are either obscure or based on school and the NC). I wish to show solidarity with those parents by refusing a visit even if I think I could "pass".
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I would be up in arms if SS routinely wanted to check on the diet being fed to DC - I may not like what you feed your DC, but that is your responsibility.
I also think it is very odd that society seems to obsess about this aspect of child welfare - no-one ever died of "not being educated".
"I also think it is very odd that society seems to obsess about this aspect of child welfare - no-one ever died of "not being educated"."
ReplyDeleteIt's all about money - we are raising 'human capital', not children.
Becker's book entitled Human Capital, published in 1964, became a standard reference for many years. In this view, human capital is similar to "physical means of production", e.g., factories and machines: one can invest in human capital (via education, training, medical treatment) and one's outputs depend partly on the rate of return on the human capital one owns. Thus, human capital is a means of production, into which additional investment yields additional output.
The hope is that investment in 'human capital' from a young age will be good for the countries GDP. However, if they check the research they might find that diversity in education is a 'good thing' in their terms:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pubeco/v93y2009i7-8p998-1007.html
This paper examines how different education systems affect GDP by influencing the diversity of human capital. We construct an overlapping generation model in which agents are heterogeneous in income and innate ability, and the final goods are produced with differentiated intermediate goods. It is shown that under a realistic condition, the diversity of human capital induced by income inequality always lowers the GDP of the next period, while the diversity of human capital induced by heterogeneous ability can increase GDP, if the produced intermediate goods are sufficiently substitutable and firms have a large span of control.
Feeling quite sick now...
"I also think it is very odd that society seems to obsess about this aspect of child welfare - no-one ever died of "not being educated"."
ReplyDeleteI think it has a lot to do with government seeing children as 'human capital' and a source of increased GDP in the future.