No suggestion made during Graham Badman’s review of elective home education caused more anger than the idea that home educated children might be at increased risk of sexual abuse than those at school. Why do professionals suspect this? There are probably two main reasons. First, home educated children often seem closer to their parents than those at school. Antagonism between parents and children, common with school children and which typically reaches a climax during adolescence, is thought to be normal. When people see a teenager getting on amicably with her father, they think it is a bit creepy! One only has to look at the clip on Youtube of me and my then fourteen year-old daughter, when it was hinted that there was something unnatural about a girl of that age who seemed to be happy in her father’s company!
There is another reason why some professionals are uneasy about home education, which has to do with its ideological basis. Two of the big influences on British home education are AS Neill, who ran Summerhill school and John Holt, an American teacher. Both had strange ideas about children and sex. Neill believed that children should be free to have sex whenever they wanted to and without restriction. This was part of his school’s ethos and probably a reaction to his Scottish upbringing during the late 19th Century. John Holt is something else and since he is so popular with home educators, his ideas are still influential. He is actually very popular and influential with another minority group, which I only found out last week.
I was talking to a friend of mine who is involved in child protection; it does not matter in what capacity. She is quite interested in and not in the least hostile towards home education. During a conversation, I happened to mention John Holt’s name and she wrinkled up her nose. ’Oh, you mean the paedophile’s best friend’, she said. I was a little puzzled about this. I know the views which Holt expresses in books like Escape from Childhood, but this was the first I had heard of paedophilia. She showed me some sites advocating paedophilia. These were not pornography sites, but places where adults argue the theoretical basis for their being able to enjoy sexual relations with children. I will not provide links; I dare say that those interested enough will be able to find them. She then showed me John Holt’s name scattered about on these awful sites. Militant paedophiles seem to have adopted him as their guru! His writings provide, just as they do for home education, justification for the practice of paedophilia. This is, to say the least of it, unfortunate.
Now I don’t know whether any readers here are aware of Escape from Childhood, but I have a copy in front of me. It is not the best known of Holt’s work. In it, he says that not only should children not be compelled to attend school, but that they should also be free to have sex with adults if they wish. He explains the reasoning behind this; I don’t personally find it convincing. And yet here is a rather alarming thing. There are essentially two types of autonomous home educator in this country. One type imposes the normal rules of childhood upon children, with the proviso that education is the child’s choice and that the kid is free to choose what and when she learns. In the more extreme form, that advocated by the Taking Children Seriously movement for instance, the child has complete freedom to choose everything. There are no bedtimes, the child is not made to clean his teeth, wear clothes, get up in the morning. If he wishes, he can eat nothing but sugar. Children are completely masters of their own lives. We have had people on here supporting this type of lifestyle.
The problem is that if you give children that degree of autonomy, then it is only a short step to giving them the freedoms which John Holt supports. That is to say the ability to choose to go to bed with anybody of any age. Holt does not see why a nine year-old girl should not have sex with a forty year old man and this too is the logical extension of the arguments advanced by some militant autonomous educators. Now I have no reason to suppose that any of them actually put John Holt’s advice into practice, but the very fact that one of home education's favourite writers is also the darling of the more articulate paedophiles might be enough to raise eyebrows. When people start following his advice on childhood autonomy, you have to ask yourself how far they are prepared to go along the road which he advocates. I have an idea that Holt’s popularity with both home educators and paedophiles might be the cause of some of the child abuse notions which have in the past gone the rounds.
'When people start following his advice on childhood autonomy, you have to ask yourself how far they are prepared to go along the road which he advocates.'
ReplyDeleteI think you just sank to an all time low, Simon.
(From a 'structured' home educator and also a Calvinist.)
I am familiar with the opinions of both AS Neill and John Holt. I read AS Neills' Summerhill and was uncomfortable with his opinions on sex and children and that he was influenced by Freudian philosphies. It was all a little odd. I picked up on Holts opinion but I cant remember where It was wasn't spelt out clearly but I did notice undertones of this sexual permissiveness for children.I didn't feel either were particularly impressive in the areas of education let alone for the promotion of autonomy in life.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I dont think it follows that just because a parent reads these books and agrees with some of the ideas that they would allow child abuse. Its as ridiculous as the assumption that just because someone has read Harry Potter they are going to become engulf in sinister witchcraft and black magic.
'I think you just sank to an all time low, Simon.'
ReplyDeleteAllowing children autonomy is a spectrum. I think it quite reasonable to ask how far along this spectrum parents are prepared to go. We know that some parents will hazard their children's future health by not insisting on their developing the habit of regular tooth brushing. John Holt says that children should be allowed to work in factories. He also thought that ten year-olds should be allowed to drive cars on the road. I do not think it at all sinking to new lows to investigate the extent to which disciples of Holt are willing to follow his advice.
Simon.
"However, I dont think it follows that just because a parent reads these books and agrees with some of the ideas that they would allow child abuse. Its as ridiculous as the assumption that just because someone has read Harry Potter they are going to become engulf in sinister witchcraft and black magic. "
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's what Simon's suggesting, he's saying that because of this connection maybe that's why LA's are suspicious of home ed. From their POV we all read John Holt therefore maybe we agree with everything he says.
'However, I dont think it follows that just because a parent reads these books and agrees with some of the ideas that they would allow child abuse.'
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that either, C. I am talking about people subscribing to a fairly dangerous ideology and the extent to which following these beliefs could lead them down the wrong path.
Simon.
Simon, I had no idea you were the guy who was on The Wright Stuff getting abused by Lowri Turner (yes I may be a bit slow on the uptake). Whatever my views on you (and I have to say they're mellowing) I thought you and your daughter were both very hard done by that day.
ReplyDelete' I thought you and your daughter were both very hard done by that day.'
ReplyDeleteThank you, Anonymous. You should have heard my daughter tearing into Lowri Turner after the programme! Lowri turner's point was that when she was herself fourteen, she would not even sit next to her own father on the beach. She took that as the yardstick and so thought it unnatural for any fourteen year-old girl to wish to be seen with her father. I thought then that this might have said more about her life than it did about ours! Those who send their children to school often have a distorted perspective about family relations and assume that shouting and screaming is natural during teenage years. I don't believe this to be so at all.
Simon.
Anonymous said ... I don't think that's what Simon's suggesting, he's saying that because of this connection maybe that's why LA's are suspicious of home ed. From their POV we all read John Holt therefore maybe we agree with everything he says.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree, there is a tendancy to generalise so from their pov it must be a worry to them.
and Simon said... I don't believe that either, C. I am talking about people subscribing to a fairly dangerous ideology and the extent to which following these beliefs could lead them down the wrong path.
Simon.
Yes, there is always a chance of extremism with such any idealoogy and belief. We see it often with religious nuts, cults and the like. Do you know of any autonomous educators that take the theory to these extremes? So far I havent met anyone like this even if they are prone to extreme views.
' Do you know of any autonomous educators that take the theory to these extremes? So far I havent met anyone like this even if they are prone to extreme views.'
ReplyDeleteThis depends what you mean my extremes. I have certainly come across people who do not insist that their child cleans his teeth or goes to bed at any particular time. As for a parent who would allow her child to 'choose' to drive the family car of hop into bed with an adult, no.
Simon.
Simon wrote This depends what you mean my extremes. I have certainly come across people who do not insist that their child cleans his teeth or goes to bed at any particular time. As for a parent who would allow her child to 'choose' to drive the family car of hop into bed with an adult, no.
ReplyDeleteYes I meant the car/bed thing.
I know many people who dont enforce bedtimes, or teeth cleaning, and will cook for their kids at 3am or be happily woken up at 5am to help a child build a circuit. But never anything more extreme so far
It's not like Holt is writing this today. I think there is a need to understand writing as a product of its time. That doesn't, of course, mean not applying any judgement. Holt is very wrong in this. I have never met a home educator who promoted anything like this line. I would certainly not be silent if I did.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would be lying if I said I didn't find it worrying that Holt is being widely cited by paedophiles - I do. (I'm taking your word for that BTW because I'm not prepared to use the family computer to venture into such territory.)If those working in child protection take any mention of Holt as a worrying sign then perhaps home educators should be aware of this.
Allie wrote.. However, I would be lying if I said I didn't find it worrying that Holt is being widely cited by paedophiles - I do. (I'm taking your word for that BTW because I'm not prepared to use the family computer to venture into such territory.)If those working in child protection take any mention of Holt as a worrying sign then perhaps home educators should be aware of this.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree and think HE'ers ought to be made aware so that they can make informed choices.
Part of TCS is trusting children to make rational choices based on information gained from parents and other trusted sources. There are many good reasons for a child to brush their teeth and avoid early or promiscuous sex. In my experience, these reasons have been good enough to convince my children.
ReplyDeleteThere is a danger that children will rebel and do the opposite behind a parent's back if they are forced to do something (or are banned from doing something) against their will. It's a matter of weighing up the risks of either approach based on the parent's knowledge of their child and their family dynamics. In our case, the safest approach was autonomy. In other families with different children, the opposite or a more mixed approach may be more appropriate.
I would probably not be considered a 'good' TCSer as, although I agree with TCS principles, if I had experienced major problems with the approach (in terms of the safety of my children), I would have changed to a different approach in a shot. Though part of the philosophy is that children raised autonomously are safer, so I suppose if this turned out to be untrue the philosophy would have proved faulty, at least for our family, so a justified reason to drop it using TCS reasoning (conjecture and refutation).
You talk about people as though they blindly follow the advice of 'gurus'. However, in my experience, people may follow a theory while it works but will look more closely and search for alternatives if it fails for their family. I think people are more adaptable than you portray.
'You talk about people as though they blindly follow the advice of 'gurus'.'
ReplyDeleteThat isn't really what I meant to convey. I was making the point that if ten thousand people follows some idealogue or other, then some will follow more blindly than others.
Simon.
http://www.home-education.org.uk/articles/article-autonomous-education.pdf
ReplyDelete"That isn't really what I meant to convey. I was making the point that if ten thousand people follows some idealogue or other, then some will follow more blindly than others."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that stating the BO?
In the more extreme form, that advocated by the In the blog post you say "Taking Children Seriously movement for instance, the child has complete freedom to choose everything. There are no bedtimes, the child is not made to clean his teeth, wear clothes, get up in the morning. If he wishes, he can eat nothing but sugar. Children are completely masters of their own lives. We have had people on here supporting this type of lifestyle."
ReplyDeleteAdhering to such a philosophy includes taking the happiness, safety and health of children seriously too. So such a parent will also advise and enable a child to make choices that are healthy and good. We are such a family, we don't seem or behave in radically different ways to other families, even "school going" families don't think we are particularly weird. What's different are the means we use to enable our children to make good choices. The children have had a balanced diet today, the unlimited x-box hasn't been used for weeks.
Then in the comments you say:
"This depends what you mean my extremes. I have certainly come across people who do not insist that their child cleans his teeth or goes to bed at any particular time. As for a parent who would allow her child to 'choose' to drive the family car of hop into bed with an adult, no"
Indeed, you are blowing this out of proportion. It would not be taking a child seriously to stand by and watch while they make a bad choice. What I love about supporting autonomy is how much my children seek our advice, that is most reassuring, they trust that advice as they know we seek to enable them to make good choices.
Given that you have no evidence, not even any unsubstantiated anecdotes of parents who would support children in making such poor choices as driving the family car or being in unsafe situations with adults. I think that your blog post is way beyond the pale.
Shame as there have been some good ones recently, that one on music teaching was fantastic.
Elizabeth
"As for a parent who would allow her child to 'choose' to drive the family car"
ReplyDeleteDriving the family car, in controlled circumstances on private property, need not be particularly dangerous! I know a couple of families that have managed to organise this when their children wanted to try and they were not even TCS.
I was thinking about driving the car on the public road, I didn't see the need to get into an argument with Simon on that one. We did facilitate our 6 year old steering the car on my knee on a private road once.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth
'I didn't see the need to get into an argument with Simon on that one. We did facilitate our 6 year old steering the car on my knee on a private road once. '
ReplyDeleteAnd no earthly reason why you should not. John Holt believed though that children should be able to drive on the public roads just like any other citizens. He also felt that they should be able to work down coal mines, vote, live by themselves and go to bed with whomever they wished. This is raving lunacy and why quite so many home edcuators in this country view him so favourably is something of a mystery.
Simon.
And of course, because some of his ideas are wrong or ridiculous, this must mean that everything he wrote was wrong or ridiculous. No need to apply any thought or reason or even bother reading anything he wrote, just dismiss everything out of hand. Easy.
ReplyDeleteIt's clearly obvious that anyone who recommends that others should read Holt's education theories agree with everything he said, whether they've read it or not. This obviously applies to university professors who recommend that students read his books. They must all be paedophiles.
' I know the views which Holt expresses in books like Escape from Childhood, but this was the first I had heard of paedophilia.'
ReplyDeleteSimon also says,
'He also felt that they should be able to work down coal mines, vote, live by themselves and go to bed with whomever they wished.'
Could you please point us to the book or article where this 'feeling' is stated clearly?
''He also felt that they should be able to work down coal mines, vote, live by themselves and go to bed with whomever they wished.'
ReplyDeleteCould you please point us to the book or article where this 'feeling' is stated clearly?'
Escape from Childhood, Dutton 1974. In this book, Holt sets out his vision for a world where children enjoy precisely the same rights as adults. They can work in the same places, drive cars, vote, live by themselves and have sex with whoever they choose; adult or child. I thoroughly recommend this book for those who wish to know what John Holt really thought, as opposed to the sanitised version of his ideas which may be found in books such as How Children Fail.
Simon.
Then I'm a bit confused, Simon. In your post you say that you know this book and the views expressed in it, but that it was the first you'd heard of paedophilia.
ReplyDelete'I know the views which Holt expresses in books like Escape from Childhood, but this was the first I had heard of paedophilia.'
This seems to lead us to believe that Holt's paedophilia views are expressed elsewhere. However, here you say,
'Escape from Childhood, Dutton 1974. In this book, Holt sets out his vision for a world where children enjoy precisely the same rights as adults. They can work in the same places, drive cars, vote, live by themselves and have sex with whoever they choose; adult or child.'
Now you seem to be saying that they were in 'Escape From Childhood' all along. How is it that you missed them?
I have no axe to grind. I'm not an AE'er. Just slightly bemused by all this new paedophilia revelation about Holt's books and not sure why no one has noticed it before.
'I know the views which Holt expresses in books like Escape from Childhood, but this was the first I had heard of paedophilia.'
ReplyDeleteSorry, I did not make myself clear. I have long known that John Holt believed that children should be allowed to go to bed with adults and that adults should not go to prison for sexual activity with children. When I said that this was the first that I had heard of paedophilia, I meant that I had not heard before that he was read by paedophiles or that the modern world of paedophilia was aware of his work and used it to justify their activities.
Simon.
'No suggestion made during Graham Badman's review of elective home education caused more anger than the idea that home educated children might be at increased risk of sexual abuse than those at school. Why do professionals suspect this?'
ReplyDeleteSimple answer...because of the Martin and Leanne Smith tradgedy.
"Simple answer...because of the Martin and Leanne Smith tradgedy."
ReplyDeleteSome architects are paedophiles, does this mean there is an increased risk of paedophilia amongst architects? If 'professions' are basing their actions on they type of 'statistic', then god help us!
"when people start following his advice on childhood autonomy, you have to ask yourself how far they are prepared to go along the road which he advocates."
ReplyDeleteI thought you'd already read the TCS article about Holt, 'The Dark Side of John Holt'. It's clear from this that John Holt was not for childhood autonomy, at least, not unless the child agreed with his or their parents choices.
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/the_dark_side_of_john_holt
'Some architects are paedophiles.....'
ReplyDeleteThere are members from most/all professions that home ed.
"There are members from most/all professions that home ed."
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is?
>>>"There are members from most/all professions that home ed."
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is? <<<
The point is that this commenter believes that all home educators are bad and all school teachers are good. See?