Tuesday 8 March 2011

Are home educators normal?

I must begin this piece with a confession, a confession which may perhaps not come as any great surprise to my readers; I am not a normal person. Of course, by definition, anybody who fails to send his child to school must be abnormal. After all, if 99% of the population are all pursuing one course of action which is seen as being wise and good and I am one of the 1% who refuse to do so, this automatically makes me an oddity. There is though, a little more to it than that. I was a strange and atypical individual long before I officially began to home educate in 1998. In a sense, my abnormality can be said to have resulted in my home educating; not the other way around. In short, I would still be a strange person, even if I had sent my kid to school.

I have met quite a few home educators over the years, as well as reading the views of many on various lists. Some of them of course present as being raving mad. We have one or two such people commenting on here. These people are the exception. All the home educators whom I met in person were far from being average people. They were not all as weird as me, but I certainly recognised many of my own characteristics in a lot of them. They had unconventional beliefs, quite a few were religious, they did not approve of vaccinations, they had been unhappy at school, there was a strong anti-establishment streak, they valued real life experience over book learning; this sort of thing. Not all had every one of these traits and some had none of them at all. However, by and large I would say that they tended to be odder than those people I know who do not home educate. I am bound to say that reading the posts of home educating parents on the home education lists and forums suggests to me that the parents whom I have met personally were not exceptional and that they were probably fairly typical of home educating parents across the country.

I have been musing on this recently when considering the notion that home educating families should receive some sort of oversight from the local authority. The classic argument advanced against this proposal is that we assume that children are generally safe with their parents. We do not worry that something will happen to children over the summer holidays, just because they are not being seen every day by professionals at the school. We take it for granted that children under five may safely be left with their parents, without making demands for annual visits to check that they are still alive and well. We allow children to go home to their parents at the weekend and do not worry that their parents are going to abuse or mistreat them. Superficially at least, this reasoning is convincing. If home educating parents are just like anybody else, except that they are not sending their kids to school, then we should regard them just as we do parents whose children do attend school.

I am not wholly persuaded by this argument. I have a strong suspicion that the overall group of home educating parents contains a higher percentage of very strange people than does the reference group of ordinary parents who send their children to school. If this were to be the case, then we would be justified in paying closer attention to these families than we would of a typical family whose children are at school. I have no doubt that in the main, these odd people are no more of a threat to their children's wellbeing and safety than any other parents. They are, if you like, harmless cranks. I am one such; a crank who rows with authority a lot and is always ready to argue with anybody who seems to oppose the interests of my family. This is not unusual in home educating parents! Interestingly, I am also quite sure that my daughter was more at hazard in her childhood than other children. I do not mean that she was at risk of being abused, starved or neglected. I have told readers before, I think, that when my daughter was two, I climbed over the barrier at Paradise Park zoo in Hertfordshire so that she could put her hand through the bars of an enclosure and stroke a tiger. We did the same trick with a wolf at London Zoo before they packed them all off to Whipsnade. I first sent her down a slide in the park when she was four days old, just as an experiment. (I of course caught her at the bottom!). She first went on a 'big' swing in the park, the kind where you have to hold on, when she was a year old. I had a theory that the movement would make a baby tighten her grip and thus prevent her from toppling off the thing when it was moving. My theory was vindicated, but I have wondered what would have happened had I been wrong. These are all minor things, but she was definitely at more risk than would have been the case with a child in a nursery.

I am not suggesting that the average home educator is in the habit of putting her child in with the lions or anything of that sort! Perhaps they do even more dangerous things like failing to vaccinate their children against common childhood diseases. What I am saying is that many home educating parents start off from the position of being rather odd people and that when we are judging the risks to their children from being all day in their parents' company, we might not be wise to assume that those risks are precisely the same as for children whose parents send them to school. I think that the risks, of many sorts, are likely to be higher. To what extent society is justified in taking notice of this and acting is a controversial question.

49 comments:

  1. I'm certainly looking forward to the comments this generates.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'I'm certainly looking forward to the comments this generates.'

    Ah Loz, I certainly wasn't meaning to suggest that you are abnormal. I am sure that you are as normal as..... I can't quite lay my hands on an appropriate simile for normality; but whatever it is, I am sure it applies to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My experience has been that a large proportion of HE families are at the odd end of the spectrum. And more so in cities than in the coutryside. Why do more hippies live in the city? Sorry, that is another topic.

    I actually found this really hard when I made the decision to HE when my daughter was very young and I was trying to get info and discuss it with people. I had/have nothing in common with these people except that my children do not go to school.

    As my children have got older, either I have got more odd or have met more normal families.

    Suzi (not from HE-UK)

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Ah Loz, I certainly wasn't meaning to suggest that you are abnormal. I am sure that you are as normal as..... I can't quite lay my hands on an appropriate simile for normality; but whatever it is, I am sure it applies to you'

    Au contraire Simon, I quite firmly place myself in the catagory of weird...Just ask anyone who knows me!
    However, I am comfortable with that label. Others may not be, it's from those who will no doubt be terribly offended that someone could even suggest that Home Educators are borderline abnormal, that I eagerly await comments from. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. IME, home educators know they're generally as 'unusual' as a box of frogs and are rather proud of it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'My experience has been that a large proportion of HE families are at the odd end of the spectrum. '

    In private conversations with home educators, most will admit that this is so. Of course in a liberal democracy, we accept that odd people have a perfect right to be odd. Things are a little more complicated though when children are concerned. If |I wish to go bungee jumping as a hobby; that is my affair. If I want to do it while holding my baby in my arms, that might be a different matter entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'IME, home educators know they're generally as 'unusual' as a box of frogs and are rather proud of it.'

    I think that this is true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Suzi..I totally agree with your findings on tree hugging urbanites. I've met a few, and they managed to change my opinion of what I believed to be odd. lol

    ReplyDelete
  9. Does anyone have any useful definitions of 'normal'?

    ReplyDelete
  10. One of the other things which marks us out as different is that we seem to value money less.

    Surviving on one income has been incredibly hard for us and has resulted in major sacrifices such as not being able to buy a house and have it paid off by now, like all my age peers, having 2 cars, holidays, a pension, you know all those sorts of things. However, I think that being prepared to make those sorts of sacrifices for your children's sake marks us out as being MORE likely to take care of our children not less.

    I wonder if the sort of risk-taking behaviour you describe is more indicative of fatherhood than motherhood, BTW?

    There's no way on earth I'd have let my 4 day old out with Daddy:-), we were still at the babymoon stage. But as soon as they were old enough for park trips, the injuries (minor, to be sure) did start to follow. I certainly remember the discussions with the hospital staff after Daddy had swung our 2 year old round by the arms and dislocated her elbow in the process.

    But they survived their tree-top, wall-jumping, mountain-climbing adventures with him. And both are now tough, brave sort of people, so probably it was a blessing to have had his risk-taking behaviour to balance my molly-coddling :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you not think that what makes us appear so different is our ability/willingness to think creatively about problems? I believe that I have noticed this trait more among HE friends.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I'm certainly looking forward to the comments this generates."

    LOL! Were you the sort of child who liked to stir things up at school by spreading rumours and then watching from the sidelines when the fur began to fly? You must feel right at home here, bless.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'LOL! Were you the sort of child who liked to stir things up at school by spreading rumours and then watching from the sidelines when the fur began to fly? You must feel right at home here, bless.'

    Meow!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I first sent her down a slide in the park when she was four days old, just as an experiment. (I of course caught her at the bottom!)."

    So what was the experiment and what was the outcome?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous (because they like to just watch fro the sidelines) said: LOL! Were you the sort of child who liked to stir things up at school by spreading rumours and then watching from the sidelines when the fur began to fly? You must feel right at home here, bless.

    What on earth are you on?? You strange little person.
    I really haven't got any idea what you are talking about, but it made me giggle nonetheless, so thank you. =P

    ReplyDelete
  16. Definition of 'normal'? Anybody?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Definition of 'normal'? Anybody? '

    conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
    2. serving to establish a standard.
    3. Psychology .
    a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
    b. free from any mental disorder; sane.

    As per the dictionary (which I know isn't exactly what you were wanting) however, I like the last one which should naturally lead onto "what is sane"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This post reminded me of a friends response when we told her we were taking our son out of school after just a few weeks. She simply smiled and said 'You never have been very good at conventional have you'.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Loz;

    Thanks for that. Definition 3 - which is the sort of area we're talking about - means that statistically, between 5% and 30% of the population would be 'abnormal' depending on where you put your cut-off points. And depending on what trait you were talking about.

    Long way to go on this one, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "What on earth are you on?? You strange little person. I really haven't got any idea what you are talking about, but it made me giggle nonetheless, so thank you. =P"

    Glad to have amused. But don't you remember those people who stood at the sidelines encouraging the people in the middle to, "fight! fight! fight!". Your comment just brought that image to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Suzyg wrote,
    "Definition of 'normal'? Anybody?"

    Would 'social norms' fit the bill here?

    From Wikipedia:

    This sociological term has been defined as "the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These rules may be explicit or implicit. Failure to follow the rules can result in severe punishments, including exclusion from the group." They have also been described as the "customary rules of behavior that coordinate our interactions with others."

    ...Deference to the social norms maintains one's acceptance and popularity within a particular group; ignoring the social norms risks one becoming unacceptable, unpopular or even an outcast from a group. Social norms tend to be tacitly established and maintained through body language and non-verbal communication between people in their normal social discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous said: Glad to have amused. But don't you remember those people who stood at the sidelines encouraging the people in the middle to, "fight! fight! fight!". Your comment just brought that image to mind.

    Again, I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are attempting to suggest that I am here simply to plant the seed of aggression into peoples minds then I am afraid you are mistaken.
    As it happens, there have been some very interesting comments made, and it was that which I was loking forward to.
    Simon always attracts a variety of readers, with equally varied opinions, which most are happy to share.
    If you think my interest in that is similar to playground goading then I am sorry for having given you that impression.

    I suppose I really must learn to be more blunt and to the point in future, for the benefit of those who may have difficulty in recognising the finer, more subtle points of conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A search for 'social norms "home education"', gave me this quote from Alan Thomas' book, Educating Children at Home:

    "Some parents say they are glad to wave goodbye to their children when they go to school... true for all of us for some of the time ... I suspect that in many cases it is a matter of expectation, conditioning and attitude, ie. it is not so unusual to be at home all day with your children and enjoy their company. More parents would be free to enjoy such if they weren't themselves the subject of so much peer pressure, materialistic demands, social norms etc."

    So for some of us our 'oddness' stems from having reasons for HE that overpower the usual social pressure to conform (seeing how poorly they are learning and their previous love of learning disappearing, seeing our child being bullied, etc). whilst others are odd because they just do not feel the social pressure in the first place and others rebel against it. I think I would place myself in the first group. My child didn't enjoy school and I had read that children can retain their love of learning through HE. Eventually these feelings were strong enough to break the bonds of social expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Loz made an interesting and relevant point yesterday in response to the Riggi case when she said:

    "Which is yet another reason to be angered when some factions of Home Education insist on behaving so 'differently'."

    Should home educators conform to as many social norms as possible outside of their education choices to avoid drawing unwanted attention to us? Is that what Simon's repeated attacks on autonomous educators are about? An attempt to bring social pressure to bear on a group he feels may harm his form of HE.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Again, I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are attempting to suggest that I am here simply to plant the seed of aggression into peoples minds then I am afraid you are mistaken.
    As it happens, there have been some very interesting comments made, and it was that which I was loking forward to."

    In that case I humbly apologise for misunderstanding your original comment. It just goes to show how misleading the written word can be without the benefit of tone, so sorry again for my misjudgement.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm weird and I love it. I've seen the world that 'normal' people live in and frankly find it extremely mundane, hence the reason I am now posting on a heretical blog in reply to the weird and interesting observations of a man whose sanity is highly questionable, and also having such a great time learning alongside my children!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous said: In that case I humbly apologise for misunderstanding your original comment. It just goes to show how misleading the written word can be without the benefit of tone, so sorry again for my misjudgement

    Heavens..no need for apologies. Like you say, it's hard to ascertain the tone of what people say on here. But thank you anyway. :)

    Anonymous said: I'm weird and I love it. I've seen the world that 'normal' people live in and frankly find it extremely mundane, hence the reason I am now posting on a heretical blog in reply to the weird and interesting observations of a man whose sanity is highly questionable, and also having such a great time learning alongside my children!

    I would at this point jump up from my chair, clap loudly and possibly start dancing about whilst chanting 'Amen' or 'hallelujah'...but that would just sound cultish, and we've already covered that!

    ReplyDelete
  28. If it is all about risk assessment, I would suggest that there are clearer links with other
    characteristics that might be better indicators; for example, surely parents with little education themselves/no books at home are at much greater risk of producing children who "fail" educationally than is the case in the general population. Parents who smoke/abuse alcohol are at greater risk of producing children who have similar issues. Yet there is little suggestion that such parents should be more closely monitored compared to the normal population - except in extreme cases, no one proposes monitoring the homes of families where the parents smoke heavily etc.

    Home educators may be a non-typical bunch when compared with the rest of a population, but does that make the risks of non-intervention any higher?

    ReplyDelete
  29. 'One of the other things which marks us out as different is that we seem to value money less.'

    It's called making a virtue of necessity! We both worked part-time and were consequently hard up a lot of the time. This meant no meals out, foreign holidays and so on. It was worth it though.

    'I certainly remember the discussions with the hospital staff after Daddy had swung our 2 year old round by the arms and dislocated her elbow in the process.'

    You should exchange notes with my wife. I think that fathers do enourage risk taking more than mothers. This is particularly important for daughters.

    ReplyDelete
  30. ' Were you the sort of child who liked to stir things up at school by spreading rumours and then watching from the sidelines when the fur began to fly?'

    May I fetch you a saucer of milk, Anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  31. 'a group he feels may harm his form of HE.'

    What form of HE would that be; the ultra-informal type which I was describing a few days ago? How would autonomous educators harm this? Genuinely puzzled.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ' I am now posting on a heretical blog in reply to the weird and interesting observations of a man whose sanity is highly questionable,'

    To which of the individuals commenting on my posts do you refer? I have trouble sometimes working out their gender and am curious to know how you can be so sure that the person is a man.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "What form of HE would that be; the ultra-informal type which I was describing a few days ago? How would autonomous educators harm this? Genuinely puzzled."

    I was thinking of parent-led rather than child-led HE, but I'm genuinely puzzled too. Your descriptions of your families early life are such a good match for ours yet we educated autonomously. I really cannot see why you feel so strongly against AE when it often looks exactly like your HE. There are similar descriptions to your on unschooler/AE web sites all over the internet and you had plenty of similar AE experiences described to you on email lists so it can't be through lack of knowledge.

    "To which of the individuals commenting on my posts do you refer? I have trouble sometimes working out their gender and am curious to know how you can be so sure that the person is a man."

    Errr, I think they may have been talking about you, but I may be wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  34. 'Errr, I think they may have been talking about you, but I may be wrong...'

    Yes, I gathered as much. This was a joke on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You really must start adding smilies or LOLs, Simon. Tone of voice really does not come through in text.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 'You really must start adding smilies or LOLs, Simon. Tone of voice really does not come through in text.'

    In this case, the words themselves should have been enough. If somebody talks of a man on this blog whose sanity is questionable, who else could they mean but me? Oh, but wait! There is of course also Peter Williams of Alton. Perhaps you are right and I should have added an emoticon after all.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Old Webb says-am one such; a crank who rows with authority a lot and is always ready to argue with anybody who seems to oppose the interests of my family.

    We been to the Arsenal Emirates football club today for a tour of the club really good it was!

    But old Webb will not row with LA officers Ed Balls M.P crazy old Badman and the department for Education as thier are alway right!
    Indeed crazy old Badman ideas where a direct attack on the family somethign Webb and his daughter where in full support of!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Teacher Julie says-characteristics that might be better indicators; for example, surely parents with little education themselves/no books at home are at much greater risk of producing children who "fail" educationally

    you should go for a tour of the Arsenal footy club very edycatinal it was!

    I have little education so you wanna do a risk assement of me LOL

    ReplyDelete
  39. 'I have little education '

    I think most of us had already guessed this.

    ReplyDelete
  40. old Webb says-I think most of us had already guessed this.

    but wont report me to HCC as some one who Webb belives should not be allowed to home educate!

    What is normal Webb? you not said?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Simon wrote,
    "I think that the risks, of many sorts, are likely to be higher. To what extent society is justified in taking notice of this and acting is a controversial question."

    Surely, given that we know there are risks involved with increased intervention (research shows harm from false positives, for instance), we should *know* that a group is higher risk before risking increased intervention levels? An individuals 'thoughts' on risk levels are neither here nor there. Unfortunately politicians and the media don't seem to value evidence over the ability to claim that they are doing *something*. The fact that the *something* may be causing more harm than good seems to be irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 'Surely, given that we know there are risks involved with increased intervention (research shows harm from false positives, for instance), we should *know* that a group is higher risk before risking increased intervention levels?'

    Not necessarily; it depends on the risks involved. If the risk to the child was of serious injury or death and the risk entailed in coming up with a false positive was only that of a visit from a social worker, then this risk might be worth taking.

    ReplyDelete
  43. 'but wont report me to HCC as some one who Webb belives should not be allowed to home educate!'

    I have never said that you should not be allowed to home educate. I have however speculated as to whether you are in fact doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Not necessarily; it depends on the risks involved. If the risk to the child was of serious injury or death and the risk entailed in coming up with a false positive was only that of a visit from a social worker, then this risk might be worth taking."

    I think you are underestimating the damage cause by referrals to SS, the majority of which are found to require no further action (80% in one study). It's currently considered appropriate to monitor only high risk populations, not normal risk populations. This is because the harms caused by monitoring normal risk populations have been shown by research to outweigh the benefits. You therefore need proof that a population is high risk before introducing monitoring or, if it turns out they are a normal risk population, you will cause more harm than good.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 'you will cause more harm than good.'

    Interesting point and depends on the sort of harm which can result in one situation as opposed to another. In the case of the social sevices referral, it is quite true as you say that 80% find that nothing further needs to be done. So statistically, a false positive here is likely to result in little harm. If the possible harm we are trying to avert could be death or injury, then it might be worth taking a chance on a few false positves.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Interesting point and depends on the sort of harm which can result in one situation as opposed to another."

    This would have been considered in the research that concluded that routine monitoring of normal risk populations is a bad idea. How could it not have been since it's the root concern.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "In the case of the social sevices referral, it is quite true as you say that 80% find that nothing further needs to be done. So statistically, a false positive here is likely to result in little harm."

    You would also need to know how many of the 20% are false-positives. Research has shown that the rate of false-positives increases rapidly the more 'normal' the risk within a population is. So monitoring of a very high risk population will produce more true-positive results than false-positive results because there are proportionately more abusive families in the population. But monitoring a normal risk population results in more false-positives than true-positives simply because the group contains a much lower proportion of abusive families. The lack of a sensitive and specific screening 'test' causes this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  48. no monitoring for us no meeting no home visits nothing!

    ReplyDelete