A difficulty with some home educating parents is that once they have been out of touch with mainstream education for a while, they rather forget how things work. This is leading to yet another confrontation, this time regarding the alternative provision funding which Westminster makes to local authorities for children under sixteen who attend colleges rather than schools.
I must say, before I point out why this scheme is doomed, that I cannot for the life of me see why any parent in her senses would want to send her fourteen year-old daughter to a further education college, where she would be mixing at once not with other fourteen year-olds, but with young men of eighteen or nineteen. This seems quite mad to me, but then it is really no affair of mine. Let us ask why local authorities, schools and colleges would all be very wary about such an enterprise and probably try and stop it dead in its tracks if humanly possible.
What we have to bear in mind is that many fourteen year-olds currently at school, particularly the more mature ones, do not like being kept at school. They hate being treated as children, dislike wearing uniform, do not really want to call adults ‘Sir’ or need to ask permission to visit the lavatory and so on. They remain at school because most of their parents are unable or unwilling to educate them at home. If a method existed though whereby they could simply move from school to college and study there, there would be a great demand for it. In the last few months, it has started to become known that this is possible. All the parents have to do is de-register their children, allow them to ’deschool’ by watching television or playing computer games for a few months and then apply for a place at college. I know of at least one parent who has been bounced into doing this by her fourteen year-old son. She would not have dreamed of home educating, but is quite happy for her son to transfer to the local college. If the idea becomes widely known and catches on, there will be many more such parents.
If the present trickle were to become a flood, this would cause a massive change in further education colleges. At the moment, because nearly all the students are over sixteen, nobody needs to worry much about things like the age of consent, which kids are heading off to the pub at lunchtime, stringent child protection policies and a host of other things. If it is known that two students of seventeen have nipped back to somebody’s house and had sex at lunchtime; nobody cares. The situation would be very different if the place had a substantial proportion of fourteen and fifteen year-olds. It would quickly become a nightmare, with the lecturers having to assume the responsibilities of teachers acting in loco parentis. The students at college are currently past the age of compulsory education and this affects how the staff view them. This too would change if there were a lot of fourteen year-olds about.
There are other problems. The funding would tend to flow form the schools to the colleges. This would screw up the finances for local authorities. What would be the reaction for the general public if instead of children being kept on school premises, they were wandering around the town at all sorts of odd times? Why just fourteen year-olds? Why not thirteen or even eleven and twelve year-olds?
As long as arrangements of this sort were informal and rare, nobody much minded the occasional fourteen year-old attending college to study. It has been going on from time to time for many years. This is quite a different thing from making it an official policy of which anybody may take advantage. One final point and this really does puzzle me, is this. I can understand parents wishing to assume responsibility for their fourteen year-old child’s education; I did so myself. If they no longer wish to do so, if they want others to undertake the job on their behalf, then there exists a nationwide network of institutions dedicated to that end. Such places are present in even the smallest villages and will educate children whose parents do not wish to do so for themselves. These places are called schools and if home educating parents wish to stop educating their children at home then they can always send them to one of these establishments. Why must home educators try to ensure that the entire secondary educational system in the country is altered, indeed revolutionised, for their convenience?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 year olds have been attending college in reasonably large numbers for years. I remember it being an option at our school 34 years ago! More recently I think it's been offered to children with attendance problems. My daughter wanted to study a fine art vocational course a few years ago, aged 14. She had no interest in studying GCSEs so school would have been pointless. I did enquire for her at the time and must admit that I wasn't too disappointed when we discovered it was impossible for some of the reasons you mention but my daughter was put out that you basically had to be a truant to do what she wanted to do! She eventually joined the course at 16 and is now at university but she still feels that she would have liked to have started the process a year or two sooner.
ReplyDeleteYes, I mentioned above that this has been going on for ages. It has in general though just been a few children here and there. What has changed is that the government anounced a while back that this may now be done by all local authoritites who wish to do so and the difficuties are about to arise because instead of just being an odd event here and there, a lot of home educating parents are now seeing it as a viable alternative to school.
ReplyDeleteSure, I was just pointing out that 34 years ago it was an option at age 14 along with geography, biology and history, so it involved quite large numbers, at least in our area. Since then the reasons for under 16s going to college have changed. I also wanted to point out why some children would want college but not school. I'm not disputing your other points, just adding more detail.
DeleteI don't think it's always as simple as people wanting to access full-time FE places for their under 16s. I have heard of people accessing that money for things like specialist courses that run for a day a week at FE colleges. Sometimes that gives access to special facilities like stables or outdoor education equipment and training. I don't think families getting funding for things like that are trying to restructure the whole secondary education system.
ReplyDelete'I also wanted to point out why some children would want college but not school. I'm not disputing your other points, just adding more detail.'
ReplyDeleteI certainly taker your point here! Many fourteen and fifteen year-olds would probably prefer to be treated as young adults, rather than children. In this day and age, who addresses superiors as 'Sir', except in schools and the army? Never the less, the way that schools and colleges are currently set up, it would require a great change to make it possible for children to transfer from one to the other. I think that those in Westminster have realised this, which is why they might be about to put a stop to it as far as possible.
The main reason my daughter wanted to go to college but not school was the availability of a particular course. If it had been available at school she would have gone to school.
Delete'I don't think families getting funding for things like that are trying to restructure the whole secondary education system'
ReplyDeleteAh Allie, I seem to recollect hearing that you are having some difficulties along this line yourself? The families may not be trying to restructure the educational system, but that is what is in effect happening. As long as it is just existing home educating families who are after this, then I am sure that the system could cope. However, I happen to know for a fact that word is getting around among people who would not think of home educating. This could easily trigger a rush of teenagers being de-registered from school, just to force the local authority to give them a place at college. if it happened; this would create a problem. One way round it would be to say that college places were only open to those who had been home educated for a year or two, but this in turn would provoke conflict from some home educating parents. I am guessing that the answer will be to call a halt to the whole alternative funding provision on the grounds of cost.
No, not my family, we are plodding along with IGCSEs at home for the elder and she's planning on college next year at the regular age of sixteen. But I know that other home edders round here have accessed that funding over the last couple of years, for a surprising range of things really. I think it's been very successful as a carrot to attract previously unknown families actually, but that's another debate...
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that I was always rather gobsmacked that anyone got access to this money because, as you say, there is free provision for under sixteens in the form of schools. But I was happy for those who did get it and who were using it imaginatively and for the benefit of their kids. If there is now back-pedalling by the LAs then I guess it will be because what was one or two is now a growing number and they are getting nervous about the possible impact.
Alternatively, Simon, we could look at reforming the system so it fits more children? Democracy is supposed to be responsive to the needs of the people and if the people are voting with their feet then our political masters (or, more likely, their Civil Servants, misnomer though that often seems) should be taking notice.
ReplyDeleteI recently met Rob Palmer of Twynham School - here - http://www.outwardfacingschools.org.uk/2010/rob-palmer-vocational-education-in-bournemouth/ and was left with the strong feeling that I was seeing a future that could work for a lot of kids. He respected them and was passionate about education for everyone, not just the academic top end. Similarly, the guys at Bournemouth Arts University here- http://aucb.ac.uk/ were passionate about potential and individuals and felt very home ed'ish so it is do-able if the will is there.
While some 14 year olds are mature enough to cope in college, not all will be, and some will be as vulnerable as they would be in school. The point you make about 14 year olds slipping off for sex struck me as ironic, given the recent issues with Megan and her teacher. Nowhere is ideal, but there's a lot of places getting away with 'could do better' while pointing the finger at home educators in a way that reminds me of the old tale of the Emperor's New Clothes.
We're probably never going to agree on this, but my feeling is that the best way for Government to solve the perceived problem of HE is to make the education system work so well that the people who choose to HE are doing it from strong beliefs, as they were in the sixties. Reduce the number, reduce the 'problem'. The current generation of HE'ers, me included, include a lot who have come to HE as a last resort not a first choice. That we're very happy there and are glad we've done it doesn't alter our underlying belief that there should be choices for our children that fit them, not the other way round.
(See the Welsh scoping out exercise for confirmation of my gut feeling...)
At the moment, they're focusing on controlling home educators without asking why they're choosing to disengage with the education system. So effectively, they're going to 'encourage' people back into a system that didn't work or they wouldn't have left in the first place without considering that the system is a bigger problem than the small group of people who vote with their feet and leave it.
'We're probably never going to agree on this, but my feeling is that the best way for Government to solve the perceived problem of HE is to make the education system work so well that the people who choose to HE are doing it from strong beliefs, as they were in the sixties. Reduce the number, reduce the 'problem'.'
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you think that I wouldn't agree with this, Anne! I think that you are absolutely right and that if the school system were fixed, then many parents would not find it necessary to de-register their kids in the fist place. I certianly don't blame those who take their children from school because of bullying or lack of provision for special needs. If the schools were better, then this would not be happening. There will always be a handful of cranks like me who will not want to take part in any system, but these numbers would be too tiny to bother about.
Oh help, we agree again. This is starting to become a worrying habit.
DeleteSo, how do we get the PTB's to consider the possibility and stop doing something that looks very like panic?
Meant to say, in answer to your 'Why must home educators try to ensure that the entire secondary educational system in the country is altered, indeed revolutionised, for their convenience?' because it desperately needs it and we're stubborn enough to try!
Delete(I don't know about you, but I haven't met a home educator who didn't have unusual reserves of willpower. It's why I enjoy meeting them so much.)
'Oh help, we agree again. This is starting to become a worrying habit.
ReplyDeleteSo, how do we get the PTB's to consider the possibility and stop doing something that looks very like panic?'
I do hope Anne, that you know that any home educator who expresses agreement with me is viewed subsequently as damaged goods; at best a mug and at worst a quisling and traitor to the cause?
Why on earth would the powers that be have any interest in catering to a small part of less than 1% of the population? Since the parents of schooled children are used to not even being allowed to watch their children play football without a CRB check, they will take it for granted that stricter regulation of any sort of education must be a good thing and in the children's interests. If I were an MP, I wouldn't touch the matter with a bargepole.
Oh, I was that long before I started talking to you! I'm structured, you see and I'm not fussed about what someone I've never met thinks about my motives. I used to be, but we all live and learn even if in my case I all too often have to do it the hard way.
DeleteAnd why should the system change? Because we're failing more than half of our children. Forget catering to 0.5% of the population, we're talking about every kid who isn't naturally academic or who doesn't fit in with the prevailing clique. I don't care how often you tell kids they're wonderful. Right from primary school kids know which the 'clever' ones are. And the 'sporty' and the 'geeky' and all the other sub groups. Pretending all kids could get to a certain level in anything just makes them turn their backs and opt out, either physically or mentally. You see it in sport, and academics.
I always knew the Olympic selectors wouldn't rush to my door, but I didn't care because there were enough other things I was good at. Imagine if there's nothing in the school system you can do? Why would you bother to put the work in that might have got you a little further? And it strikes me that those kids aren't any worse off at home than they would be at school. In fact, there might even be an argument for saying that them truanting raises standards because they're not disrupting it for the ones who want to learn.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Why on earth would the powers that be have any interest in catering to a small part of less than 1% of the population?"
City College Norwich offers 22 courses aimed specifically at 14-16 year olds. They appear to run for two days a week over two years and are clearly aimed at school pupils (some mention a requirement for a good attendance record and minimum SATS level 3 attainment in English and Maths). I've no idea if they accept home educators (I tried to ring but just got an answer machine) but I suspect it would depend on how easy funding can be attained.
http://www.ccn.ac.uk/courses?tid_4=1229&tid_1=All&tid_2=All&field_education_level_value_many_to_one=All&tid_3=All
NFER looked at 14-16 year olds in 5 colleges in 2007,
The impact of 14-16 year olds on further education colleges
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/ICL01/ICL01_home.cfm?publicationID=23&title=impact%20of%2014-16%20year%20olds%20on%20further%20education%20colleges
Another study:
14-16 year olds in further education colleges: lessons for learning and leadership
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13636820601143031
The article suggests that the success is due to a pedagogy that makes use of experiential and social forms of learning in an environment which allows students to connect more fully to a future adult world. The article concludes by exploring the possibilities of making this successful experience more widely available to 14‐ to 16‐year‐olds. Government plans are suggested to be inadequate in addressing the degree to which the competitive environment and different cultures will undermine collaborative arrangements.
Other colleges with 14-16 programmes:
City College Brighton and Hove (250-300 students per year)
http://www.ccb.ac.uk/public/courses/14-16-programme
Wiltshire College
http://www.wiltshire.ac.uk/courses/14-16/
Redbridge College
http://www.redbridge-college.ac.uk/14-16-courses
Tower Hamlets College
http://www.tower.ac.uk/14-16Courses
Myerscough College
http://www.myerscough.ac.uk/?page=14-16
Northbrook College
http://www.northbrook.ac.uk/news/14to16/
Lewisham College (393 14-16 students)
http://www.lewisham.ac.uk/about-us
Kendal College
http://www.kendal.ac.uk/news-11-06-16.php
Reaseheath College
http://www.reaseheath.ac.uk/courses/14-16-students/#.UG7oF1GTKuY
That is horse crap Webb college kids under 18 can not drink wine or beer in a pub and all colleges would not allow there students under 18 to got to a pub to do this or have sex at anther students house.(is that what your daughter did at college?)
ReplyDeletestate schools can not educate our children to the standard we want so using a colleges for some under 16 is a good idea
with you Webb its always what you can not do your stuck in a time warp lets open up the colleges to improve the education some kids need