When I wrote a couple of days ago about the mythology of home education in this country, I was reproached by one reader for failing to mention Joy Baker. Since I shall shortly have much more to say about the mythos of British home education, this might be a good place to begin.
The standard story circulating among home educators is that Joy Baker was an ordinary housewife in the English county of Norfolk and that she decided in the early 1950s to educate her own children, rather than sending them to school. The local authority were outraged at the idea that a housewife could think herself competent to educate her children and so tried for years to force her to send the kids to school. She eventually triumphed and her victory in 1961 paved the way for modern home education in this country.
So much for the legend. Let us now look at the real story of Joy Baker. We cannot do better than allow her to speak for herself and explain in her own words what she was up to. Here are two clips of her talking about home education:
http://www.eafa.org.uk/catalogue/116621
http://www.eafa.org.uk/catalogue/208166
Several interesting things strike one about these interviews. The first of course is that Mrs Baker is one of those people about whom I recently wrote, parents who hated school themselves and so decided not to send their children to school. Education does not enter into the question. She describes her own school days as ‘thoroughly unhappy’, says that schools are places of ‘great unhappiness’, dislikes teachers and schools in general and does not seem to wish to talk about her children’s education at all. To this extent, she cuts a familiar enough figure, being typical of many modern home educating parents.
Watching the first of these clips is a sobering experience. I remember those times vividly and I can tell readers that the home shown here is pretty much what would at that time have been called a ‘slum’. There are no books, nothing to indicate that any kind of education is taking place; as indeed it was not. Of which, more later.
So what was the sequence of events which led to Mrs Baker crossing swords with Norfolk County Council? There is no mystery about this. The council became aware that the children were not attending school. This in itself was not alarming; there have always been home educated children in this country. They simply wrote to Mrs Baker and asked her to give an outline of the education that she was providing for her children. She refused, telling them in effect that it was none of their business. This went on for a while and eventually they sent someone to visit. We have seen the film of the home. The council officer found herself in a home which was next door to being a slum and which contained four children who did not appear to be receiving any sort of education. Mrs Baker makes her views clear enough in the interviews. If the children wish to learn about conventional subjects, well they can do that when they are older. It’s not her responsibility. The county council disagreed. It must be borne in mind that it was not home education that Norfolk County Council objected to. They simply wanted to be sure that the children, in particular the girls, really were receiving an education.
It is time now to consider another point, one which is invariably left out of the accounts which modern home educators read. Joy Baker thought that girls did not really need a formal education. As long as they learned to cook, do the laundry, mind small children and so on; this was enough education in itself. Boys needed a richer education, but for girls it was different. It can surprise nobody that when the local authority realised all this, they told Mrs Baker that she would either have to provide a proper education for all her children or send them to school.
It might be argued that attitudes were different in the 1950s and that this sort of view about the inferior education which would be sufficient for girls was not uncommon in those days. Incredibly, there are still home educators today who agree with this point of view; parents who think that girls are better off just learning to cook and clean! I said at the beginning of this piece that somebody commenting here had reproached me for not mentioning Joy Baker. I explained briefly about this case and the person then astounded me by pretty much saying that this was right and that it was better for girls to be taught what used to be called ‘mothercraft’ or ‘domestic science’ than going on to university. Here is the exchange, which may be found on the thread on this blog headed; British home education; examining the mythos. I said:
You do know why Norfolk County Council was uneasy about Mrs Baker educating her children, don't you? I am talking about such things as her view that girls needed only a rudimentary education, because they would only be going on to be housewives, that sort of thing?
The response of the person who had commented was to say:
I'll warrant then that Joy's girls would have had to learn cookery, nutrition, household management, child care and basic account keeping - all valuable life skills and skills that would have enabled them to earn a living since these are services people pay for. On the other hand Simon Webb managed to equip his daughter to take a degree in the "non-subject" of philosophy. On balance I know which education seems to have been the most suitable.
Yes, in this day and age, over half a century after the Joy Baker case, there are still home educating parents in this country who feel that it is more important for girls to learn to cook and look after babies than it is for them to aspire to university! I think that this renders all comment on my part superfluous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon wrote today:
ReplyDelete"There is no mystery about this. The council became aware that the children were not attending school. This in itself was not alarming; there have always been home educated children in this country."
My God, you can learn! In the past you have frequently claimed that home education as we know it was virtually unheard of before Joy Baker. Here's a typical example:
Simon wrote on 14th September 2012:
" Take the 1944 Education Act, for example. Today, we think that this plainly provides for the home education of children by their parents, but for the first fifteen or twenty years after it was passed, this was not at all how it seemed to people. That favourite part, beloved of home educators, ‘by regular attendance at school or otherwise’, was generally thought to refer to the provision of teaching by a tutor or governess. It wasn’t until cases like that of Joy Baker that the courts finally agreed that it could also mean parents themselves."
Simon wrote today:
"It might be argued that attitudes were different in the 1950s and that this sort of view about the inferior education which would be sufficient for girls was not uncommon in those days."
Of course this can be argued. Whilst I disagree with any suggestion that girls aught to be limited in this way now, it was clearly normal in those days and this included the education most girls would have received at school. In the 50's the vast majority of girls left school at 15 and, after, at most, a brief training period, entered employment only to leave once married. Genered vocational courses at secondary moderns were the norm for the majority of girls. It seems pointless for you to bring up this issue as an argument against Joy Baker since her daughters are unlikely to have fared any better at school!
*Genered*
ReplyDeleteGendered
"there are still home educating parents in this country who feel that it is more important for girls to learn to cook and look after babies than it is for them to aspire to university"
ReplyDeleteYou can't beat a bit of good old misrepresentation to stir up controversy can you Simon? I was merely taking issue with your assumption that education must be academic to be suitable. This bring us to the question of the purpose of education, which is surely to provide the individual with skills they can turn to productive use in order to have meaning, purpose and a means of support in the society in which they find themselves. The pursuit of academic study for its own sake is pointless and, I would argue, indefensible. At a time when this country is crippled by unprecedented national debt, the last thing it needs is a generation of young people incapable of making or producing anything except hot air. If Joy Baker taught her daughters the skills of seamstressing, horticulture, preserving, cooking, accounting, nutrition, thrift, child care then she equipped them with a range of pratical skills. These kinds of practical skills are offered by any college of FE you care to look at and so most cataegorically do constitute "education". It is only your own snobbery that leads you to denigrate them as "inferior" to a study of the classics or philosophy. A philosophy graduate may be lucky enough to find a reasonably well paid job. I doubt they will ever actually produce anything and most likely they will forever be a burden on the public purse - I suspect there are not too many openings for philosophy graduates in the private sector. A person who can make their own clothes, grow, cook and preserve their own food, account for and manage money will have a skillset that is not only saleable but will ensure they can ever after provide for their needs without falling back on the public purse. To me, that is what defines a suitable education.
"most likely they will forever be a burden on the public purse"
ReplyDeleteBy which I mean they will likely only ever work in the public sector not the private sector and thus their salary will add to the taxation burden.
' A philosophy graduate may be lucky enough to find a reasonably well paid job.'
ReplyDeleteWritten presumably by somebody who knows nothing about PPE at Oxford! You might care to research this subject and see why it is one of the most sought after courses. You might well find that newspapers and banks, to give two examples, are eager to employ Oxford trained economists.
' I suspect there are not too many openings for philosophy graduates in the private sector'
Again, try finding out a little about what sort of jobs graduates in Philosophy, Politics and Economics typically go to. You really have not a clue what you are talking about.
'If Joy Baker taught her daughters the skills of seamstressing, horticulture, preserving, cooking, accounting, nutrition, thrift, child care then she equipped them with a range of pratical skills'
As I have already said; first read 'Children in Chancery', then read accounts of the case and after that we will talk. It is pretty plain that you know nothing about the matter.
'I was merely taking issue with your assumption that education must be academic to be suitable. '
I said nothing of the sort, merely that Joy Baker thought that girls did not even need the opportunity for such an education.
'It is only your own snobbery that leads you to denigrate them as "inferior" to a study of the classics or philosophy'
When somebody decides that girls are more suited to learning about cooking and cleaning than studying history or literature, alarms start ringing in many people's minds, although not apparently in yours.
I have no problems with Philosophy; done properly, it's a serious subject that can make a valuable contribution to questions such as the ones that arise in medical ethics and many other spheres (and I'm an engineer, not particularly sympathetic to woolly-minded art/social/BS types).
ReplyDeletePolitics, Philosophy & Economics, however, is just a fast track to leadership, power and possibly wealth for people who are generally unsuitable for anything - leadership in particular - apart from pushing themselves and their own self-centred opinions.
Whether it's man or a woman, someone who can only cook and look after babies will fulfil a much more useful role than a PPE graduate. Many of the latter have helped to bring the country to its knees.
'"most likely they will forever be a burden on the public purse"
ReplyDeleteBy which I mean they will likely only ever work in the public sector not the private sector and thus their salary will add to the taxation burden.'
It is hard to know whether one should be horrified or amused at this level of ignorance.
One can imagine the infant Aung San Suu Kyi telling her mother that she wished to study PPE at Oxford. What a mercy that she wasn't told that she ought to be content with doing the cooking and other housework!
Comments such as 'A philosophy graduate may be lucky enough to find a reasonably well paid job' give insight in the sort of advice that this person would be offering to a child. Obviously knows nothing about PPE and would be advising the child instead to take an NVQ in childcare; this being a far more suitable and useful subject for a girl. Absolutely shocking.
how about treating everyone as an individual and wondering whether the actual parents of the individual children might be best placed to know their strengths and weaknesses and interests and personalities, and love them more than anyone else in the world and might possibly be the best placed person to give them the education that they particularly want and need?
DeleteMaybe those children felt happy and well prepared for the kinds of lives that they actually wanted?
Possibly not I don't know but it's quite likely that someone making a positive choice not to send their children to school does so because they want what they perceive as something better.. And don't they have the god given right as parents to make that kind of choice? As long as their choice is not damaging to the child. Seeing as how it's possible to go into education post 18 and make that choice for yourself is it necessarily harmful to never experience schooling before this age?
'someone who can only cook and look after babies will fulfil a much more useful role than a PPE graduate.'
ReplyDeleteIs this a real person or merely a figment of some fevered imagination? Or perhaps a cunning local authority officer, intent upon discrediting home education? There are few female engineers and so I cannot help wondering if this is a man. If so, would go some way to explaining these terrible views.
"Obviously knows nothing about PPE and would be advising the child instead to take an NVQ in childcare; this being a far more suitable and useful subject for a girl"
ReplyDeleteYou misrepresent people to the point of outright lies Simon!
You previously said your daughter was studying philosophy. A "non-subject" you called it. Now suddenly it's PPE. Get your story straight Webb.
ReplyDeleteUm, excuse me, Philosophy is NOT a non-subject. And neither are Child Care or Nutrition.
ReplyDelete"There are few female engineers and so I cannot help wondering if this is a man. If so, would go some way to explaining these terrible views."
ReplyDeleteWhy is gender relevant here?
'She describes her own school days as ‘thoroughly unhappy’, says that schools are places of ‘great unhappiness’, dislikes teachers and schools in general and does not seem to wish to talk about her children’s education at all. To this extent, she cuts a familiar enough figure, being typical of many modern home educating parents.'
ReplyDeleteThis is simply not true. In 15 years of HE and meeting hundreds of home educators and knowing quite a few of them extremely well, I have never heard any of them say that they didn't enjoy their own school experiences. This could be why so many of my HE friends are teachers. We were thoroughly invested in the idea of school education. Until it failed our own children.
You really must stop reading a few select blogs of extremely odd people, Simon.
'[She] does not seem to wish to talk about her children’s education at all. To this extent, she cuts a familiar enough figure, being typical of many modern home educating parents.'
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth is this bit all about, Simon? Are you kidding? Home educators never shut up about their kids' education.
'I think that this renders all comment on my part superfluous.'
ReplyDeleteIf only.
'this included the education most girls would have received at school. In the 50's the vast majority of girls left school at 15 and, after, at most, a brief training period, entered employment only to leave once married. Genered vocational courses at secondary moderns were the norm for the majority of girls. '
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to learn something about this subject, you might care to read a book of mine which is due out next week, The Best days of Our Lives; School Life in Post-War Britain.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Days-Our-Lives-Post-war/dp/0752486373/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358623475&sr=1-7
Did the research for this book inform your improved knowledge of home education over the years? Nice to see you playing catchup at last.
Delete
ReplyDelete"There are few female engineers and so I cannot help wondering if this is a man. If so, would go some way to explaining these terrible views."
Why is gender relevant here?'
Because I suspect, and certainly hope, that most women would be horrified at the idea that a parent decided that her daughters needed a less demanding education than her sons. The person who has been commenting here did not seem to find this shocking. I think that this distorted perspective would be more likely in a man than a woman. Perhaps the person concerned could tell us?
My mother was educated at a girls' grammar school in the late forties and early fifties and it was certainly not all about home-making. She was encouraged to go to university, which she did.
ReplyDeleteIf this is a reply to the message at 5:29, I was talking about the normal or 'average' treatment of girls in the '50s, so you're mother's experience means nothing unless you are suggesting that it was typical for the majority of girls in those times? It was certainly not true for any of the girls in my mother's school!
Delete*you're*
Deleteyour
I really must read through before clicking...
'My mother was educated at a girls' grammar school in the late forties and early fifties and it was certainly not all about home-making. She was encouraged to go to university, which she did.'
ReplyDeleteYes, not everybody shared Joy Baker's views on the proper role for women, even in the 1950s. If I had told my daughter when she was little, "Listen darling, don't worry about academic stuff, someone who can only cook and look after babies will fulfil a much more useful role than a PPE graduate." then this would have been an absolutely toxic notion to instil in her. Never the less, this is just what one of those commenting here said. This is precisely what must be guarded against in the upbringing of girls in particular. Society pushes that message strongly enough already, without parents reinforcing it.
'Did the research for this book inform your improved knowledge of home education over the years?'
ReplyDeleteSince the title of the book is 'School Life in Post-War Britain', I will leave it to you to guess the extent to which it would have been likely to inform my knowledge of home education!
' I was talking about the normal or 'average' treatment of girls in the '50s, so you're mother's experience means nothing unless you are suggesting that it was typical for the majority of girls in those times?'
ReplyDeleteYou will find all the relevant statistics in my latest book, which covers the period from 1945 - 1959!
Anon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Why is gender relevant here?'"
Simon repiied:
"Because I suspect, and certainly hope, that most women would be horrified at the idea that a parent decided that her daughters needed a less demanding education than her sons. The person who has been commenting here did not seem to find this shocking. I think that this distorted perspective would be more likely in a man than a woman. Perhaps the person concerned could tell us?"
What was shocking about that comment, Simon? It applied to both sexes but you quoted selectively, omitting the first part to make it look sexist; the original said:
"Whether it's man or a woman, someone who can only cook and look after babies will fulfil a much more useful role than a PPE graduate. Many of the latter have helped to bring the country to its knees."
"Whether it's man or a woman, someone who can only cook and look after babies will fulfil a much more useful role than a PPE graduate. Many of the latter have helped to bring the country to its knees."
ReplyDeleteThe discussion was originally about the education of girls and people who provide a different type of education for girls. It is very common for girls to end up cooking and looking after babies, but rare for men. Telling children that it is better to cook and look after babies than go to university will be more likely to have an adverse effect on the girls, regardless of tacking on the words, 'whether its man or woman'.
Anything which might have the effect of guiding girls into a life of domesticity and away from achievements outside the home is shocking. In this case, what apperas at first sight to be a neutral piece of advice aimed equally at men and women will have this effect more upon girls than it will upon boys, who will assume that talk of looking after babies is not really intended for them.
Giving subliminal messages of this sort which reinforce the patriarchy is always shocking, at least to me.
But the comment referred to PPE, Simon; you selectively quoted then generalised, and finally interpreted the comment as a public pronouncement rather than a point on a blog. This reflects your own innate prejudices more than anything else.
DeleteOne might also argue - along your line about "few female engineers" - that the point was aimed at men slightly more than women. After all, who can doubt that the life chances of many women and men would be better if the likes of Cameron, Balls and many other PPE graduates (not to mention political lawyers) had stayed at home to cook and look after children.
'But the comment referred to PPE, Simon; you selectively quoted then generalised, and finally interpreted the comment as a public pronouncement rather than a point on a blog. This reflects your own innate prejudices more than anything else.'
ReplyDeleteThe original comment to which I drew attention was about philosophy:
'I'll warrant then that Joy's girls would have had to learn cookery, nutrition, household management, child care and basic account keeping - all valuable life skills and skills that would have enabled them to earn a living since these are services people pay for. On the other hand Simon Webb managed to equip his daughter to take a degree in the "non-subject" of philosophy. On balance I know which education seems to have been the most suitable.'
The writer seemed to be saying that both Joy Baker's daughters and mine would have been better off doing cooking and childcare. Since this was a point specifically relating to the education of girls, I thought it worth remarking upon.
"The original comment to which I drew attention was about philosophy...The writer seemed to be saying that both Joy Baker's daughters and mine would have been better off doing cooking and childcare. Since this was a point specifically relating to the education of girls, I thought it worth remarking upon. "
ReplyDeleteThen you are confused, Simon; you've muddled different points - but perhaps deliberately so, for effect. The other point was clearly unrelated, but you tried to imply it was sexist when it clearly wasn't.
'Then you are confused, Simon; you've muddled different points - but perhaps deliberately so, for effect. The other point was clearly unrelated, but you tried to imply it was sexist when it clearly wasn't.'
ReplyDeleteOne of us is confused, certainly. The person who brought up Joy Baker a few days ago clearly thought that she had the right idea about the edcuation of girls. Here is the original exchange:
Has Webb not heard of Joy Baker "Children in Chancery" Never let the facts get in the way of rhetoric eh Simon?
I have the book in front of me as I write, along with copies of the newspaper reports of the case. You do know why Norfolk County Council was uneasy about Mrs Baker educating her children, don't you? I am talking about such things as her view that girls needed only a rudimentary education, because they would only be going on to be housewives, that sort of thing?
I'll warrant then that Joy's girls would have had to learn cookery, nutrition, household management, child care and basic account keeping - all valuable life skills and skills that would have enabled them to earn a living since these are services people pay for. On the other hand Simon Webb managed to equip his daughter to take a degree in the "non-subject" of philosophy. On balance I know which education seems to have been the most suitable.
Whoever this person is, he or she was very keen to talk about Joy Baker and as soon as I mentioned my own reservations, due chiefly to the way that she felt that girls did not need as good an education as boys, it was clear that the person commenting saw no problem with that. The sexism is there, plain to see. Most people would be horrified about somebody who treats girls differently as regards the level of education which they need. This individual thought it was fine.
Then you are confused, Simon; you've muddled different points - but perhaps deliberately so, for effect. The other point was clearly unrelated, but you tried to imply it was sexist when it clearly wasn't.
ReplyDeleteGreat items from you, man. I've be aware your stuff prior to and you are just too fantastic. I actually like what you have got right here, certainly like what you are saying and the way during which you are saying it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it smart. I can't wait
ReplyDeleteto read much more from you. This is actually a tremendous website.
Also visit my blog :: description
Great beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your website, how
ReplyDeletecould i subscribe for a blog website? The account aided me a
acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear idea
Visit my site his response
You are so awesome! I don't suppose I have read something like this before. So good to find another person with unique thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thanks for starting this up. This website is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!
ReplyDeleteHere is my website; my ip is blocked from facebook