I am always delighted, as I have remarked before, to see particularly flagrant examples of hypocrisy and double-dealing. We saw one such yesterday, when it was suggested that local authorities who do not believe that children are being provided with a suitable and efficient education should issue a School Attendance Order. Why, they have all the powers they need already, you know. I have not the slightest doubt that the people who write this sort of thing know perfectly well that it is not true. Similarly, the person who commented that educational philosophies were not enough and that local authorities should expect a good deal more than that alone as evidence that an education is taking place was being less than candid. Let us look at those two points and see what we can make of them.
Local authorities do ask for evidence that children are receiving an education. The easiest thing would be for the local authority officer to drop round and have a chat with the kid, let him show some of his work and talk about it. This of course won't answer, because as is well known the children of home educating parents are liable to have nervous breakdowns, screaming fits or go into status epilepticus if they are introduced to an unknown adult. Lord knows what happens in such homes when the man comes round to read the meter! Presumably the child has a blanket thrown over his head and is put in a darkened room to recover. Without visiting, how is evidence provided to the local authority? Ah, I know. Perhaps the exercise books for the last year or so, containing essays about plays that have been studied, diagrams of the nitrogen cycle, what the child has been learning about the Tudors; that sort of thing? Why no, this won't be forthcoming; the family are autonomous, you see. Well what about notebooks where the child has pursued an interest of his own, made detailed observation of an ants' nest or something of that sort? Written material about some interest of his own? Unfortunately not, because although he is twelve, his parents have not yet got round to teaching him to read and write. He is illiterate and can just about scrawl his own name in block capitals. ( This is no exaggeration by the way. The teenage sons of three very well known home educating parents are functionally illiterate because their parents had ideological objections to teaching them to read and write).
Perhaps the best thing to do for the evidence is for the mother to submit a diary, accompanied by photographs. We know quite a bit about this scam, because parents on some home education lists who have the wind up when the local authority have been in touch ask how to produce such evidence, then post asking for advice on how to deal with this crisis. Easy peasy! Just pretend that your son is studying biology by practical work in the garden. Take a few pictures of him looking thoughtfully at a beanstalk and then scribble a few pages of a supposed diary. Photocopy this and send the copies and the pictures to the local authority. Be sure to quote the appropriate law when you do so. This will make the local authority realise that although your kid is growing up pitifully ignorant and unable even to write his own address, it would be impossible to prove this to a lay magistrate.
This is the way in which many children in this country are denied an education, in defiance of both their legal and moral rights. The local authority can only issue an SAO if it appears to them that the child is not receiving an education. On the evidence sent, it is possible that he is; it is equally likely that he is not. If they do take action, all the home education lists will at once be aware of the fact and without knowing the facts will offer their unqualified support for the parent concerned. There will be the expense of prosecuting, negative publicity and at the end of it all, the magistrate might not choose to allow the prosecution anyway. Little wonder that few School Attendance Orders are ever issued.
(The teenage sons of three very well known home educating parents are functionally illiterate because their parents had ideological objections to teaching them to read and write).
ReplyDeleteHow do you know they are illiterate *because* because their parents had ideological objections to teaching them to read and write? My son is 12 and can only just scrawl his name but it's not for want of trying by school teachers for five years and me for four.
Your conclusion sounds suspiciously like the conflation of correlation with causality that has bedeviled education research for the past century.
'Your conclusion sounds suspiciously like the conflation of correlation with causality that has bedeviled education research for the past century.'
ReplyDeleteEither that or the judicious application of Occam's Razor.
Webb says-There will be the expense of prosecuting, negative publicity and at the end of it all, the magistrate might not choose to allow the prosecution anyway. Little wonder that few School Attendance Orders are ever issued.
ReplyDeleteThis is how it must be Webb it is for a magistrate with all the facts before him/her to decide if an education is suitable for that child that is how our justice system works if some one is suspected of an offence he is up before the magistrate who then decides according to the law of the land if one their is a case and two if this person is guilty after looking at all the evidence we have the best system of justice in the world alowing any one accused of something to put his/her side before a court.
An LA if it belives child is not geting an education MUST issue SAO and then go to court of law to prove it this is the best way.
'Either that or the judicious application of Occam's Razor.'
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your explanation is this: If a parent claims to have ideological objections to teaching a child to read and write, but their child has still learned to read and write, you have protested that the parent has, in fact, taught the child because they have explained what sounds letters represent and has sat with the child telling them what words the squiggles in a book represent.
If, however, a parent has done exactly the same thing, but their child hasn't learned to read and write, you have concluded that the child is illiterate because the parent *hasn't* taught them.
My child has failed to learn to write after nine years of active tuition, so it is clearly unsafe to conclude that lack of tuition per se must be the cause of any give child's illiteracy.
All children reach reading readiness at different ages. Trying to force a child to read before they are ready can do more harm than good and could result in the child developing an aversion to reading.
ReplyDeleteW. Webb this is just another prime example of you deriding home educators that do not share your control freak Marxist delusions, that you area god, that everyone else is wrong and that your way will preserve.
ReplyDeleteThose people that view you as a despicable nasty minded person suffering from delusions of grandeur and moreover an incorrigibly dishonest person have good cause.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I have not the slightest doubt that the people who write this sort of thing know perfectly well that it is not true."
I can assure you I genuinely believe that it should be possible for a parent to provide enough evidence to convince a reasonable person, on the balance of probabilities, that a suitable education is being provided without you or the state defining how the parent does this. This is the level of evidence required in a court, so why do you think a parent should be required to do more to convince an LA?
If the LA has good reason to suspect a parent of lying there are other alternatives to your solutions. The parents could ask an independent educationalist to assess their child's education and write a report, for instance, maybe by contacting a local tutor supply business. The problem here is that the person to be convinced must be 'reasonable'. You seem to assume that everyone lies all the time and I for one do not think that is reasonable.
"The teenage sons of three very well known home educating parents are functionally illiterate because their parents had ideological objections to teaching them to read and write)."
ReplyDeleteDo they have ideological objections to teaching or just to teaching against a child's will? I've not heard of this strange educational theory you keep talking about with its aversion to teaching (presuming you're not making the mistake you've made so often in the past in thinking that autonomous education rules out teaching).
"The local authority can only issue an SAO if it appears to them that the child is not receiving an education. On the evidence sent, it is possible that he is; it is equally likely that he is not."
ReplyDeleteNot true. LAs can successfully take a family to court for not providing enough evidence for them to reach a conclusion. That's how some of out case law developed (wasn't it Oak Leah?).
"There will be the expense of prosecuting, negative publicity and at the end of it all, the magistrate might not choose to allow the prosecution anyway. Little wonder that few School Attendance Orders are ever issued."
Alternatively, very few SAOs are issued because often the threat alone is enough to make the parents comply with LA demands.
"This of course won't answer, because as is well known the children of home educating parents are liable to have nervous breakdowns, screaming fits or go into status epilepticus if they are introduced to an unknown adult."
ReplyDeleteI've not seen this reason put forward before, maybe the child in your example was mentally ill or had been traumatized by sever bullying?
Sarah Fitz-Claridge puts the case against visits for AE well:
"Having a home visit (or any kind of face-to-face meeting) with a person standing in judgement over your whole life-style can be destructive of autonomous education, for it would be a very unusual child who did not experience a narrowing of choices, and very unusual parents who could entirely protect their child from anxiety – and therefore from a loss of spontaneous motivation – at the very prospect of such a judgement."
So to sum up your article, all parents lie repeatedly and purposely and carelessly dumb down their kids and all LA employees and magistrates are crap at their jobs. Oh Simon, why can't everyone be as honest and clever as you?
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately not, because although he is twelve, his parents have not yet got round to teaching him to read and write. He is illiterate and can just about scrawl his own name in block capitals."
ReplyDeleteThis would have described my son at 13. However, he is now studying A levels and his teachers forecast A grades. Why do you think it's a problem that he couldn't read and write at 13? He learnt plenty and in great detail before then so it didn't stop him learning and it certainly hasn't stopped him progressing academically.
Oh, and he's also holding down a job working 18 hours a week. Has your daughter achieved as much?
ReplyDelete"Oh, and he's also holding down a job working 18 hours a week. Has your daughter achieved as much?"
ReplyDeleteDon't bother, anonymous. Unless you have documented evidence and are prepared to publish it, Simon will just conclude that you are lying.
"Across the globe, Home Education has been the driving force of evolution from SEN to IEN . It is the single most important reason why Local Authorities, Offstead and other would-be interfering bystanders must be vigorously kept at bay."
ReplyDeleteextract from http://www.home-education.biz/blog/education/from-sen-to-ien-with-jedi-mums-and-dads
Clearly, W. Webb (Darth Vader ii's best mate) does not understand IEN
OT for this article, but has your academic book been reviewed by any academics, Simon? Did you send it to newspapers or journals for review as is usual? I would love to read an educated opinion on your book before splashing out and buying it.
ReplyDelete"The easiest thing would be for the local authority officer to drop round and have a chat with the kid, let him show some of his work and talk about it."
ReplyDeleteWhat possible benefits can be derived from a snapshot assessment? There are far to many extraneous and intervening variables which could effect performance.
There is another option open to local authorities and it is one that I believe some have used. They could work on improving the relationship between the LA and the local home educating community. They could offer a once a month drop-in where, for example, they provide information about local events that might be of interest to home educators and/or promote council services. They could offer free or subsidised premises where home educators can meet together. They could make some effort to provide an exam centre for those who wish to take public exams. They could, perhaps, start with something as simple as removing some of the patronising and officious nonsense on council websites, or making sure they have open and consistent policies in place for interacting with home educating families.
ReplyDeleteI believe that efforts like that would pay dividends in helping to identify families who are struggling to home educate and who might be in need of support. Unlike Simon, I tend to assume that the vast majority of parents want to do the right thing for their children. If offered genuine support when they need it then most people will take it. I don't see that this would need to cost more than a lot of box ticking visits and certainly not more than pursuing people through the courts. And the best thing about this approach is that it doesn't require any additional powers - no legislation, no consultations, no wasting money on people like Graham Badman. I'd say it has a lot to recommend it.
'All children reach reading readiness at different ages. Trying to force a child to read before they are ready can do more harm than good and could result in the child developing an aversion to reading.'
ReplyDeleteEvidence needed for this strange claim.
'home educators that do not share your control freak Marxist delusions,'
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I am a Conservative!
'Do they have ideological objections to teaching or just to teaching against a child's will? '
ReplyDeleteNo, I am talking about parents who say things like;
'My twelve year-old does not read yet, but I am not worried. He will read when he is ready.'
This was quoted on the Education Otherwise website, but has now been removed.
'Sarah Fitz-Claridge puts the case against visits for AE well'
ReplyDeleteThe problem here being that she is mad as a hatter and does not believe that a child should be made to wear a seat-belt when travelling by car. I would not take anything she said too seriously.
'Oh Simon, why can't everyone be as honest and clever as you?'
ReplyDeleteWell they can aspire to it, Anonymous, they can aspire.
'Oh, and he's also holding down a job working 18 hours a week. Has your daughter achieved as much?'
ReplyDeleteI do not know to whom this refers and so am unable to comment.
"The problem here being that she is mad as a hatter and does not believe that a child should be made to wear a seat-belt when travelling by car. I would not take anything she said too seriously."
ReplyDeleteEvidence for this claim please.
'There is another option open to local authorities and it is one that I believe some have used. They could work on improving the relationship between the LA and the local home educating community.'
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely true and in some areas this is happening. This is certainly a good way forward, although I don't think it a complete answer.
'Evidence for this claim please.'
ReplyDeleteTCS website
"I do not know to whom this refers and so am unable to comment."
ReplyDeleteThe same person who learnt to read and write at 13, is currently studying A levels and expected to gain A grades by his tutors. Has your daughter managed this whilst holding down a job?
Why do you think it's wrong that I took the attitude you mention above - 'My twelve year-old does not read yet, but I am not worried. He will read when he is ready'? I knew my child and his capabilities. I saw him learning (what and how) so was confident that he would be able to learn to read and write when he chose to, and he did. People don't make comments like this in a vacuum, snatched out of thin air. They spend time with their children and are aware of their capabilities.
"'Evidence for this claim please.'
ReplyDeleteTCS website "
It's a big site, can you be more specific. Where does Sarah say this?
W. Webb says: "Evidence needed for this strange claim."
ReplyDeleteWell W. Webb, when did you ever offer a single shred of evidence top support your daily spurious allegations?
Or even sight a reference for the book of utter rubbish that you wrote?
"'Evidence for this claim please.'
ReplyDeleteWebb, whoo you think you are to demand evidence - more delusions of grandeur!
'Or even sight a reference for the book of utter rubbish that you wrote?'
ReplyDeleteI fancy that the word for which you are groping here is 'cite' rather than 'sight'. As I said a few days ago, I used the Harvard referencing system for this book and so have not the pleasure of understanding your point.
Simon made this claim about Sarah Fitz-Claridge,
ReplyDelete"The problem here being that she is mad as a hatter and does not believe that a child should be made to wear a seat-belt when travelling by car. I would not take anything she said too seriously."
and suggested the evidence was on the TCS web site. Well I've looked and not found this supposed evidence. So were you making this up Simon, or can you provide evidence for your claim?
"Evidence needed for this strange claim."
ReplyDeleteResearch shows that the most criticial aspect to whether a child reads or not, and continues the habit into adulthood, is how the feel about reading. If they have negative associations with it, they will avoid it, and likely stop doing it once it is not ‘required.’
Evidence needed for this strange claim.
ReplyDeleteIt is blatantly apparent that you have never studied child psychology. Forcing a child to learn a skill or to master a subject before he is maturationally ready is ineffective and inefficient. It takes him longer to learn it, and the learning is less complete.
'and suggested the evidence was on the TCS web site. Well I've looked and not found this supposed evidence. So were you making this up Simon, or can you provide evidence for your claim?'
ReplyDeleteActually it was david deutsch and not, as I said, Sarah. Since they both peddle the same weird line though, I don't think the case is greatly altered.
'Research shows that the most criticial aspect to whether a child reads or not, and continues the habit into adulthood, is how the feel about reading. If they have negative associations with it, they will avoid it, and likely stop doing it once it is not ‘required.’'
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely true, might quite irrelevant. One can give a child negative associations about reading, whether it is taught at two or fourteen. This is not an argument against teaching children to read at any age.
'It is blatantly apparent that you have never studied child psychology. Forcing a child to learn a skill or to master a subject before he is maturationally ready is ineffective and inefficient. It takes him longer to learn it, and the learning is less complete.'
ReplyDeleteNot really true at all. the whole idea of reading readiness, which was so popular in America, is something of a myth. The younger children learn to read, the better and easier.
"'Evidence for this claim please.'
ReplyDeleteWebb, whoo you think you are to demand evidence - more delusions of grandeur!'
Somebody unable to distinguish a request from a demand. People seldom issue demands by saying 'please'!
Such hostility about reading with your child. How sad.
ReplyDeleteIt's so enjoyable if you're doing it right.
TCS, have you got to the bit about 'indigo children' yet?
ReplyDeleteAnyway..just read the TCS site.
ReplyDeleteIt's been dead for 5 years and everyone sounded really uptight and tense. I reckon there's been a few of the TCS parents divorced or separated by now, Probably one or two restraining orders issued.
"Not really true at all. the whole idea of reading readiness, which was so popular in America, is something of a myth. The younger children learn to read, the better and easier."
ReplyDeleteFantastic, so the psychologists are wrong and Webb is right.
Forced learning can cause frustration, anxiety, alienation and loss of interest in learning. The learning is not only inefficient and stressful, but research indicates a resultant lowering of learning capacity.
I have my own living, breathing proof of the above. My 7 year old son is now 'ready' to start reading and is progressing at a surprisingly rapid rate.
'Fantastic, so the psychologists are wrong and Webb is right.'
ReplyDeleteThere is no such things 'the psychologists'. Some psychologists think one thing and others another. Fifty years ago, the idea of reading readiness was very popular; today it is less so. Home edcuators are often a little behind the times and many operate in the spirit of a progressive primary school of the 1970s.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSuch hostility about reading with your child. How sad.
It's so enjoyable if you're doing it right.
So if a child cannot read at an early age then the parent is not "doing it right".
How arrogant and insulting to make such an assumption without knowing all the relevant variables.
'Forced learning can cause frustration, anxiety, alienation and loss of interest in learning. The learning is not only inefficient and stressful, but research indicates a resultant lowering of learning capacity.'
ReplyDeleteNobody is suggesting forced learning. Most two year olds like to find things out and learn. It is a rare child of that age who does not like bokks or is not delighted to be able to recognise words such as his own name.
'but research indicates a resultant lowering of learning capacity'
May I ask, without of course demanding, what research this is?
"There is no such things 'the psychologists'. Some psychologists think one thing and others another. Fifty years ago, the idea of reading readiness was very popular; today it is less so. Home edcuators are often a little behind the times and many operate in the spirit of a progressive primary school of the 1970s."
ReplyDeleteSo you would advocate trying to force a child to read when they are unable to retain any of it. When the child becomes frustrated, upset and anxious, you would still continue to push.
Ahh yes, I can see how that would instil a love of reading.
'So you would advocate trying to force a child to read when they are unable to retain any of it. When the child becomes frustrated, upset and anxious, you would still continue to push.'
ReplyDeleteIf a child becomes frustrated, upset and anxious, it is likely to be due to the nature of the teaching; not because teaching is in itself likely to cause these emotions. I simply cannot imagine this happening when the whole thing is presented as an exciting game to a two year-old. At that age, the child won't even be aware that he is being taught. It is leaving the thing later, so that a child has got some idea that teaching and play are different things, which is likely to lead to problems.
"If a child becomes frustrated, upset and anxious, it is likely to be due to the nature of the teaching;"
ReplyDeleteOr because they are not interested in learning to read yet and have far more interesting (to them) things to be getting on with instead. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've had experiences of both reactions (early reading and lack of interest) and the same environment was provided to both children.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Actually it was david deutsch and not, as I said, Sarah. Since they both peddle the same weird line though, I don't think the case is greatly altered."
You do realise that the TCS site represents a developing theory and the post was a discussion point? The TCS theory also requires parent's not to self sacrifice, and it sounds like this would be an issue in the emergency situation described. TCS agrees that we cannot always be perfect and will coerce at times and even agrees that coercion is necessary at times. For instance, they say that snatching a child out of the path of a car or preventing one child from beating another over the head with a bat is acceptable even though they are effectively coercive actions.
An emergency situation with a need to get an injured child to hospital sounds just the type of situation that is likely to lead to this type of issue, especially if the family have been unable to resolve the seatbelt wearing problem before then. In less stressed situations, alternatives that do not involve coercion or self-sacrifice can be explored. In a situation like this I suspect that most TCS parents would view it in terms of necessary coercion to prevent injury. TCS is not a list of rules that must be followed and I know from membership of the TCS list years ago that others (including Sarah) disagreed with David's suggestion here. Claiming "they both peddle the same weird line", is just plain wrong, because TCS was an ongoing discussion that involved disagreements.
Going back to the topic of this article. It largely comes down to the mythical, 'reasonable person'. This is who we have to convince in a court of law, so it seems reasonable that LAs should use the same yardstick when looking for evidence of a suitable education. Simon seems to think a reasonable person will automatically assume that everyone is lying to him unless he can see things with his own eyes or have documented proof from professionals. Other people disagree that an automatic assumption of guilt is reasonable (including both civil and criminal courts).
ReplyDelete"It is leaving the thing later, so that a child has got some idea that teaching and play are different things, which is likely to lead to problems."
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily, I'm finding that my child is far more motivated to read now because reading has a purpose. Personally, motivation and giving a skill meaning and purpose is the way forward.
"Or because they are not interested in learning to read yet and have far more interesting (to them) things to be getting on with instead. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've had experiences of both reactions (early reading and lack of interest) and the same environment was provided to both children."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, I couldn't agree more. My oldest son was able to read before he started school and as I've said, my youngest started at 7.
'variables' my arse....like I said hostility.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong in reading to your child a bedtime story, an afternoon story, looking at dinosaurs or pirates..
Some of us call it fun, some of you have just got hang ups.
"There's nothing wrong in reading to your child a bedtime story, an afternoon story, looking at dinosaurs or pirates."
ReplyDeleteWho said this was wrong? I read to my child every day, sometimes several times a day, sometimes for hours, yet they didn't choose to learn to read until they were 13. They learnt by looking at books with parents and siblings instead of reading the book themselves. As a result they could 'read' and understand books of a much higher level than they would have attempted on their own because we could discussed any new words and concepts as we met them. You don't need to be able to read yourself to learn from books.
"'variables' my arse....like I said hostility.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong in reading to your child a bedtime story, an afternoon story, looking at dinosaurs or pirates..
Some of us call it fun, some of you have just got hang ups."
There's a big difference in reading to a child and the child reading on their own. I don't recall anyone saying that they didn't read to their child or that it was in anyway wrong to do so. We have a wide selection of books that I read to my children and have always done so.
'variables' my arse...."
ReplyDeleteThat statement itself could be construed as hostile.