Monday 2 May 2011

Home educators engaging with fantasy rather than debating reality

The comments to my post yesterday illustrate neatly a difficulty which I have encountered before when trying to discuss home education rationally with other home educators. I wrote of the possibility that home educated children might be under-represented in universities and professions, perhaps because they lack formal qualifications. I cited some of the few figures available, those from Dudley. It might have been profitable to talk about these figures and ask if they are typical of local authorities. One could also debate the question of whether these statistics are a reliable indicator of the overall position of home education in this country. Perhaps those known to the local authority are less likely to gain qualifications than those who have been home educated since birth? There are many interesting points to look at here. Instead of course, somebody introduced a weird non sequitur, accusing me of believing that many home educated children were in Young Offenders Institutions. This was such a demented observation, that I was left a little taken aback, particularly when another person commenting also claimed to remember my making this suggestion. What on earth could be going on? Why would I ever have said such a mad thing? The answer is of course that I never had; it's just the sort of crazy nonsense that one gets with many home educators.


Back in November 2009, I had posted a rather dull piece, comparing home education to an outlandish hobby. Somebody, the same person who commented yesterday, then said that I believed that home educated children would end up in Young Offenders Institutions. Mud sticks and other people have now evidently been gulled into thinking that this was my own belief! The person who made this completely loopy comment back in 2009, said yesterday that:


'A long time ago, here in this blog, you asserted that Youth Offender institutions would be full of ex-HE'd children because of the poor educations you believed they were getting'

Well not quite, that was what she herself had suggested. She went on to claim that she clearly remembered my making this odd claim. (I assume that this is the same person; there surely cannot be two people commenting here and using the expression, 'languishing in Youth Offender Institutions'?)


Do you see what has happened here? Instead of discussing statistics and their possible significance, we end up talking about a really weird idea that some crank has dreamed up and attributed to me. Whether this was done because the individual concerned thought it a good way to derail any proper debate, or whether she is absolutely cuckoo; I have no idea. A bit of both probably. I have observed this sort of thing happening time and again when people try to talk sensibly about home education. I don't mean just on here, but as a general thing. Rather than look at figures and try to extrapolate or make deductions from them, many of those on the home educating side prefer to fall back on personal attacks of this sort. It helps to distract everybody from the real issues and is very popular with parents. Instead of having to think carefully about statistics and hard sums, they can instead simply cry 'Oh, that Graham Badman, what a bastard!" or 'Ed Balls hates home educators!' or, as in this case 'Simon Webb is so dreadful; he says that our children will all end up in prison!'. Well at least it means that they don't have to think too hard about things.

23 comments:

  1. Oh you silly Billy. Have you forgotten all the posts you make that imply exactly that? One from January this year:

    'To give one example. In prisons, it is extremely common to find young people without a single GCSE. Among young professionals, this is unheard of. The more and better GCSEs, the better the outlook in terms of employment and higher education for a young person. This means better earnings over the course of a lifetime. This is not to say that every home educated child without GCSEs will end up in prison of course! It does mean that out of a large group of youngsters, those without GCSEs are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to go into higher education. They are also far more likely to be involved in criminal activity, using drugs and suffering from psychiatric problems. Their health tends to be poorer as well. All this tends to lower their earnings over their lifetime.'

    You like to make these dark predictions. Other people read them and remember them. Not just me.


    If you check my comments yesterday, you'll find I said nothing like this:

    ''Simon Webb is so dreadful; he says that our children will all end up in prison!''

    However, I did use the word assertion. I should not have done so and I apologise. 'Implication' would have been more accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another ominous suggestion contained here from July last year:

    'If the education I provide results in an ignorant bully or a lazy psychopath, then these too are matters which will affect society. The doctors and hospitals which will treat my child in the future, the social security benefits she claims, the prison in which she may spend time, her attitude as a citizen; all these are heavily affected by the home education whcih she received and in turn have many effects upon others.'

    Perhaps it's just a literary technique? Hyperbole?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Whether this was done because the individual concerned thought it a good way to derail any proper debate, or whether she is absolutely cuckoo; I have no idea. A bit of both probably.'

    Nice. Someone points out something silly you've said in the course of a long, detailed answer they've given which was completely on point and answered the question you posed in your blog post, and they are characterised as evil and insane.

    Goodness, what an over-reaction!

    In fact, I *am* interested in sensible debate and agree with many of your posts and have tried on various occasions to to re-route discussion here away from individuals and back on to the facts.

    I've always failed though and should probably give up trying ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay then... back to the topic which was originally being discussed; long term outcomes for previously HE children.

    Several of us did know some who were in professions (on my part, midwife, teacher, acountant) and others also listed some. The biggest problem however is that it is difficult to actually identify who was home educated once they are long past that stage- the ones we know about tend to either have parents who are still "politically" active in the HE world, or are siblings of children still being home educated. Then there is the problem of the higher incidence of children with SEN in the HE world- my daughter certainly isn't going to appear on any list of "professionals" - ever!

    In addition there are certain groups of home educators who don't encourage any further education - for example, I know JW families who do a thorough HE to GCSE (including taking the exams) but don't then go any further, and some of other groups of various religious persuasions either don't educate girls beyond 16 or encourage both sexes into trades, and not more education. None of these children are going to turn into " professionals" Now you could blame HE for this, but in fact the same groups often still have children in state schools (or have now started their own schools - eg Taylor Brethren) and the same practices still occur there - it is the "cultural norm" I suppose, rather than a product of home education.

    If you are going to compare stats with those of LAs such as Dudley, for example, it may be better to stick to outcomes at 16 - which are at least a direct result of HE rather than later experiences. It still won't eradicate issues such as the fact that many families don't opt for GCSEs and the higher incidence of SEN, but it is a simpler group ot "monitor" for outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Such fun to see home schoolers ripping chunks out of each other.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 'out of a large group of youngsters, those without GCSEs are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to go into higher education. They are also far more likely to be involved in criminal activity, using drugs and suffering from psychiatric problems. Their health tends to be poorer as well. All this tends to lower their earnings over their lifetime.'

    This was of course said in the context of the claims that Schedule 1 would pay for itself by preventing some of these outcomes. These statements are perfectly true of large groups of young people without GCSEs, although not every statement of every young person, of course. I really should start providing a simplified version of my arguments with bullet points. All the long sentences evidently confuse some of those reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ' Someone points out something silly you've said in the course of a long, detailed answer they've given which was completely on point and answered the question you posed in your blog post, and they are characterised as evil and insane'

    Almost right. She actually pointed out something silly which she had herself said. I did not suggest that she was evil, unless you ragrd derailinbg and diverting a debate as an evil action? Cuckoo is a little different from insane.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'Anonymous said...
    Such fun to see home schoolers ripping chunks out of each other.'

    Actually, in this case, EX-home educators who have both done outstanding jobs educating their children outside of the school system, but I'm glad we provided you with entertainment. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sure people can look up the contexts of those extracts themselves. If they search for 'prison' or 'NEET' your readers will be able to draw their own conclusions.

    I must admit, I do prefer short sentences. It's a personal style thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Another ominous suggestion contained here from July last year:

    'If the education I provide results in an ignorant bully or a lazy psychopath, then these too are matters which will affect society. The doctors and hospitals which will treat my child in the future, the social security benefits she claims, the prison in which she may spend time, her attitude as a citizen; all these are heavily affected by the home education whcih she received and in turn have many effects upon others.'

    Not at all an ominous suggestion. I was countering the assertions being made that home edcuation is an entirely private matter with which society should not concern itself. Whether or not any home edcuated young people actually do become lazy psychopaths or end up in prison is neither here nor there. I was demonstrating that society might in some circumstances be adversely affected by home edcuation and asking whether this was sufficient cause to introduce new controls on the practice. Obviously, some of those reacting to this are not in the habit of debating ideas in this way; by positing hypthotical cases which would tend to support an idea, or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'I must admit, I do prefer short sentences. It's a personal style thing.'

    So do I in general. I sometimes get a little carried away on this blog; drunk on my own verbosity. If anybody wished to criticise my writing here on stylistic grounds, that would be perfectly acceptable. Perhaps it was case of ' many a true word spoke in jest'; perhaps all the long sentences and semi-colons actually do obscure my meaning sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, you have my admiration for being able to USE semi-colons. I can never remember how to ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'Colons' and 'Semi colons'...
    It looks more like arseholes and wannabe arseholes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To return to the substantive discussion (if possible):

    I agree with Julie at 00:27: "the ones we know about tend to either have parents who are still "politically" active in the HE world, or are siblings of children still being home educated".

    Once someone has been, for example, practising as a doctor for five years they probably do not advertise having been home-educated (just as they would not advertise the two or more schools they attended). Also, if someone is EHE for CSA and then goes to college, would they necessarily attribute becoming a doctor to EHE? And if they were EHE for only 6 out of 11 years? And if their parent was not active in national EHE circles would we know about them?

    Also agree about SEN. Anecdotally we hear about SEN children written off at school who then go on to achieve much more than predicted when withdrawn ... And there are no stats on that either.

    "If you are going to compare stats with those of LAs such as Dudley, for example, it may be better to stick to outcomes at 16 - which are at least a direct result of HE rather than later experiences."

    And that gives rise to the problem with Dudley's stats. As EHEers do not have to register with the LA, how can Dudley be sure that they know about the outcomes for all (or a majority) of the EHE young people. Basically, they were reporting those they know about and comparing it with the total of school-leavers. There is no suggestion that there was any adjustment to ensure that they were comparing like with like. My hypothesis is that Dudley mostly know about those with (educational or social) problems and so that is what they reported.

    However, until it is made possible for EHEers to take "school-leaving" exams without direct cost to the families, it is still not a fair comparison. EHEers may, for example, have only 5 GCSEs/IGCSEs at 16 but that does not mean that they do not proceed to A-levels and uni.

    I'm not sure that we (or LAs) are in any position to make outcomes-based statements.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon wrote,
    "It might have been profitable to talk about these figures and ask if they are typical of local authorities. One could also debate the question of whether these statistics are a reliable indicator of the overall position of home education in this country."

    I don't think they are even a reliable indication of the position in Dudley. They would not have included all home educators, and would not have included those who took GCSEs or equivalent qualifications a year later than schooled children, for instance. None of my children would have gained 5 GCSEs or equivalents if they had been included in Dudley's figures at age 16, yet they all have them now and are in further or higher education.

    "These statements are perfectly true of large groups of young people without GCSEs, although not every statement of every young person, of course."

    Or they could be confusing correlation with cause and effect. It might well turn out that even if you manage to force particular people through the system 'successfully' they will still have negative outcomes. It seems more likely that the type of person they are (self esteem, confidence, good example of parents, etc) is more likely to cause negative outcomes than the simple lack of paper qualifications at age 16.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Simon wrote,
    "out of a large group of youngsters, those without GCSEs are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to go into higher education. They are also far more likely to be involved in criminal activity, using drugs and suffering from psychiatric problems."

    These activities probably began whilst the child was at school. They didn't get their GCSEs because they were too busy engaging in criminal activity, using drugs or coping with psychiatric problems or difficulties at home. Using GCSEs as an indicator of future risk of NEET may make sense when used with a group of children who are automatically directed towards the taking of GCSEs.

    However, it cannot be transferred lock, stock, and barrel to a completely different group of children. It's like saying that the number of eggs per clutch is an indicator of the health of the local bird population, therefore, if home educated children fail to lay eggs, they must be very unhealthy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'These activities probably began whilst the child was at school. They didn't get their GCSEs because they were too busy engaging in criminal activity, using drugs or coping with psychiatric problems or difficulties at home. Using GCSEs as an indicator of future risk of NEET may make sense when used with a group of children who are automatically directed towards the taking of GCSEs.

    However, it cannot be transferred lock, stock, and barrel to a completely different group of children. It's like saying that the number of eggs per clutch is an indicator of the health of the local bird population, therefore, if home educated children fail to lay eggs, they must be very unhealthy'

    This is quite true and my own instict would be that far fewer home edcuated children as a group are likewly to end up in the criminal justice system. Those withdrawn from school at fourteen due to truancy and so on, might however be more likely to end up in prison. As I said, this was in the context of the claims being made that home education is purely private matter. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily the case; not claiming that prisons are full of home edcuated young people, as some seem to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'I'm not sure that we (or LAs) are in any position to make outcomes-based statements.'

    True, which makes the outraged opposition to the Department for Education's proposal for a longitudinal study of home educated children to try to look at outcomes, all the more puzzling. You would think that if people were sure that this method of education is so good, they would be delighted to see the long term outcomes revealed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I suspect the outrage is not for the idea of a study as such, but for one carried out by (or for) the DfE which people might think would have a vested interest in not finding good outcomes from EHE. People often feel that they will be judged negatively whatever they are doing and therefore do not volunteer for such research.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 'People often feel that they will be judged negatively whatever they are doing and therefore do not volunteer for such research.'

    Possible, but one cannot help but remember Education Ohterwise's attempts to get a few facts and figures. In 2003, Education Otherwise distributed two and a half thousand questionnaires to its members. Over 80% wanted nothing to do with providing any facts about the edcuation they were providing. Other surveys have found the same thing. The overall impression is that most home educators are very anxious to avoid giving any hard information about either outcomes or the form of the education they are undertaking.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Over 80% wanted nothing to do with providing any facts about the edcuation they were providing."

    Not getting around to filling in the questionnaire and sending it back doesn't equate to avoiding giving hard information. I very rarely return questionnaires sent to me by membership organisations, I usually can't be bothered or cannot spare the time, it's not a case of having something to hide!

    Also, you would need to know how many were received by currently home educating families before you could conclude that 80% did not answer. Many people join EO before they begin to home educate and leave soon - EO has (or had) a very low rate of long term members. So it seems likely that there were a relatively high proportion of members just thinking about HE rather than doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "As I said, this was in the context of the claims being made that home education is purely private matter. I was simply pointing out that this is not necessarily the case; not claiming that prisons are full of home edcuated young people, as some seem to believe."

    But even this point doesn't hold, because it seems unlikely that these same children would turn around their lives if they were forced to attend school. Where they are being educated (or not) is unlikely to make a difference if their problems are caused by crime, drugs, etc.

    ReplyDelete