Friday 15 February 2013
No wonder local authorities are alarmed about home education!
I have several times been accused in recent days of asking questions to which I already knew the answers. I have to say that this is quite absurd. Not only did I not have a ready-made answer up my sleeve, I could not in a million years have guessed how other people would respond to the case which I cited forty eight hours ago. I described a child who was not being educated and yet whose mother claimed that he was. I fully expected readers to agree that this was something of a problem and to discuss ways that genuine home educators could be distinguished from situations where no education is being provided. This is a problem and I can see why some home educating parents get a little tetchy when their local authority acts as though all home educated children are missing from education. However, this was not at all the way most people saw the example that I gave. Instead of agreeing that here was a child who was not receiving an education, the general view seemed to be that he was doing fine and should be left alone. It was suggested that playing computer games all day and then hanging round the streets with a bunch of kids who were gradually moving further into petty crime was a perfectly adequate education.
Even weirder, most of those commenting seemed to place responsibility for truanting upon the local authority, rather than the child’s parents. This is very curious! Home educators are always talking about the sanctity of parental responsibility and then as soon as a kid truants, it is no longer the parents’ responsibility, but that of the local authority.
Having found that not one reader feels that anything needs to be done to help a child who does not attend school and is not receiving an education from either his parents or anybody else; there is little more to say. This was a genuinely unexpected turn of events and I am sure that any local authority officers reading this blog will draw their own conclusions about the matter. The conclusion is, as far as I am able to make it out, that a number of home educators believe that if a child truants and is then withdrawn from school by his mother in order to avoid prosecution; then that is fine and the child should simply be ignored. Any child who is claimed to be home educated should face no further attention from the local authority, regardless of whether or not this is really the case. Parents should not be responsible for ensuring that their children attend a school at which they are registered and if the child fails to attend then this is the fault of the local authority. Playing computer games all day, after not getting up until after lunchtime is a pefectly adequate eduction for a fourteen year-old. I can assure readers that my open ended questions a couple of days ago were not intended to elicit such views as this! I am frankly taken aback at what has been said.
I cannot help remembering the newspaper articles which I wrote on the subject of home education a few years ago; the ones that first made me an object of hatred for the loopier type of home educating parent. In one passage, which caused particular anger, I said:
Autonomous education is based on a simple principle: that children alone are the best judges of what they should learn and when they should learn it. If a child wishes to spend the day slumped in front of a television or games console, this is not a problem, the choice is his. Many autonomous educators go even further, asserting that it is for the child to decide on bedtimes, diet and other aspects of lifestyle.
I can still recall the fury which this caused. I was told that I knew nothing of autonomous education and that the idea of supposedly home educated children sitting around all day playing Grand Theft Auto was ridiculous. I knew then that it was not, of course, and it is interesting to find it being confirmed here that quite a few home edcautors see nothing wrong with this lifestyle. Indeed, although I never used the expression, somebody reading about the child whom I described who was missing from education, did in fact call this autonomous education. I think that there is nothing more that I can add to this debate. Obviously, if a child hates school and truants, then I think that a parent should be able to provide an education for the child at home. I am a fanatical supporter of home education. When this is not done though and a child is left to his or her own devices, then I believe that the local authority should intervene and help the parents to provide an education for their child.
"I have several times been accused in recent days of asking questions to which I already knew the answers. I have to say that this is quite absurd. I could not in a million years have guessed how people would respond to the case which I cited forty eight hours ago."
ReplyDeleteNow here's a nice example of Simon moving the target. Nobody said he knew the answers that people would give; instead, we know that he has his own answer to questions that he poses. He invents questions in order to try to lead readers into traps.
'instead, we know that he has his own answer to questions that he poses'
ReplyDeleteThis is not the case either, I am afraid. Distinguishing between those who are genuinely home educating their children and others who are not, although claim to be doing so, is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. Local authorities have problems doing this and often annoy real home educators as a result. I was trying to find out if home educating parents themselves have any idea how this could be done. Believe me, if I had a simple solution to this, I would cheerfully announce it. In the event, it was a pointless exercise, because nobody here thought that it mattered if a child was not receiving an education at home. How widespread this indifference to the needs of children who are not at school might be among home educators generally is anybody's guess.
Simon, I don't think I've made myself clear enough. I'm responsible for my children's education. I'm not responsible for anyone else's children. That is their parents responsibility and IF it can be proved that this is failing then it becomes the LA's responsibility.
ReplyDeleteAnd I've given you solutions,which involve the LA providing an education appropriate to Jack's age, ability and aptitudes.
Truancy is not a new problem and by raising the leaving age again they'll make it worse.
Anne
"Believe me, if I had a simple solution to this, I would cheerfully announce it. In the event, it was a pointless exercise, because nobody here thought that it mattered if a child was not receiving an education at home."
ReplyDeleteYou're highlighting this as a problem with home education when it's actually a more general problem, and it's more of an issue for the school system because many more children are affected. A great many children leave school with little to show for eleven or more years in school than Jack. - but you seem to suggest that the home educating version of this is a problem that must be tackled first.
LAs should tackle the enormous problem of children coming out of school with nothing or next to it; concentrating on a tiny number of home educated children that may not be learning should not be a high priority. Instead LAs are using HE as a displacement activity; they want to tackle something they see as easy for a quick win - with all the benefits that would bring for them but not for society.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Having found that not one reader feels that anything needs to be done to help a child who does not attend school and is not receiving an education from either his parents or anybody else"
You clearly don't read your comments very carefully since I can remember at least one person saying that this case provided grounds to start SAO proceedings - something I agree with incidentally (I agree the LA has grounds, but not necessarily that the SAO will need to continue once more evidence has been provided). I loath 'me too' posts so didn't respond as my view had been put forward by someone else, but clearly you need to have a view repeated often in order to notice it or take it into account.
Most people seemed to think that, though he was arguably not receiving a suitable education, the alternative (being forced into school, his mother being fined or jailed, etc) was no better, and would probably be worse. The only reason that there appears to have been more discussion around the suggestion that game playing alone is a suitable education, is because that's the only idea you engaged with. You ignore the other views so those discussions died out. Your bias skewed the 'result'.
Simon said,
"I fully expected readers to agree that this was something of a problem and to discuss ways that genuine home educators could be distinguished from situations where no education is being provided.... This was a genuinely unexpected turn of events"
LOL. You were surprised at the response despite the fact that you also admitted having had the same discussion several times on you blog in the past? You ignoring alternative views to the one you expected and hoped for and only engaging with the idea that playing computer games can provide a suitable education, and are then express surprise that most of the discussion centred on this point.
Simon said,
"I can still recall the fury which this caused. I was told that I knew nothing of autonomous education and that the idea of supposedly home educated children sitting around all day playing Grand Theft Auto was ridiculous."
Two of my autonomously educated children went through phases like this, but both went on into further and higher education. Strange but true. A snapshot in time or over a short period does not give the full picture.
LOL! I love Jack's Diary, https://homeedlampoon.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/jacks-diary/
ReplyDelete'You clearly don't read your comments very carefully since I can remember at least one person saying that this case provided grounds to start SAO proceedings - something I agree with incidentally'
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid not. Jack's mother did exactly what many other home educating parents do. There was no evidence to suggest that her son was not receiving a suitable education. She sent an educational philosophy and list of resources. She also refused a visit. Do you really think that local authorities should issue SAOs to every parent who does this?
'the alternative (being forced into school, his mother being fined or jailed, etc) was no better, and would probably be worse. '
Of course it would be worse. Whoever suggested such a thing? Is this really the only alternative you can come up with? Think hard about what else might be helpful.
' A great many children leave school with little to show for eleven or more years in school than Jack.'
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about this. If measured only in GCSEs, perhaps.
'LAs should tackle the enormous problem of children coming out of school with nothing or next to it; '
ReplyDeleteWhat can be meant by this? Does the writer mean children leaving school with few qualifications? If a child at sixteen has no GCSEs, does the writer think that there is 'nothing to show' for the education? Does this also apply to home educated children? If a home educated child has no paper qualifications at the age of sixteen, does that really mean that he or she 'has nothing'? How many readers agree with this view of education?
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"I'm afraid not. Jack's mother did exactly what many other home educating parents do. There was no evidence to suggest that her son was not receiving a suitable education. She sent an educational philosophy and list of resources."
I would also expect to see a list of activities and descriptions of how the resources have been used in practice. This is the usual approach recommended by HE web sites and organisations. You also said the she just copied and pasted the educational philosophy and have mentioned that LA staff recognise them. These are provided as examples and are not intended to be copied, they should be personalised and changed to represent the individual family's approach.
In such a case, yes, I would expect them to request more information and if none is forthcoming, they should consider beginning the SAO process. This was also said by the other commenter within the last few days and every time you have raised this issue over the years as far as I recall.
Simon said,
"Of course it would be worse. Whoever suggested such a thing? Is this really the only alternative you can come up with?"
It's not my alternative, it's the approach many LAs take and the route you supported when the last Government attempted to change the law. They don't have the resources to offer any real support or help, so what are you suggesting should happen? We are still waiting with baited breath for your suggestions. You seem keen to shoot everyone else's thoughts down but seem surprisingly reluctant to reveal your own.
'We are still waiting with baited breath for your suggestions. You seem keen to shoot everyone else's thoughts down but seem surprisingly reluctant to reveal your own.'
ReplyDeleteThere is not the least mystery about this. I am not at all a fan of the kind of mass instruction carried out in schools. I would like to see more children educated at home. Obviously, for those who are unable or unwilling to educate their own children, there must be a safety net and the state will undertake the task on their behalf. This is best doen in schools. I would like to see parents who take their children out of school helped and advised to provide an adequate education. This is not a difficult job; it need take only two or three hours a day. The local authority has a legitimate role in helping parents to undertake the edcuation of their children and I would like to se more money put into this and less into schools.
'In such a case, yes, I would expect them to request more information and if none is forthcoming, they should consider beginning the SAO process.'
It is impossible to distinguish genuine home educators by this method. If local authorities followed this procedure, then you would find many home educators caught in such a net.
"What can be meant by this? Does the writer mean children leaving school with few qualifications? If a child at sixteen has no GCSEs, does the writer think that there is 'nothing to show' for the education?"
ReplyDeleteNo, the writer means children leaving school barely able to read or write. Of course, in Simon's world, it's fine for the school system to do that, but a great problem if a home educator does it.
Social workers and LA bureaucrats are keen to deal with HE; if it's a school problem, they bury it because it's too difficult, whereas, chasing home educators is a much better prospect. Nice expense-paid joy-rides, sitting in other people's home and lots of boxes to tick.
'No, the writer means children leaving school barely able to read or write. Of course, in Simon's world, it's fine for the school system to do that, but a great problem if a home educator does it. '
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out, it is one thing for a child to be offered an education, but you cannot compel him or her to take advantage of it. I am concerned about children who are not being offered an education. This is more likely in a domestic than in a school setting.
"As others have pointed out, it is one thing for a child to be offered an education, but you cannot compel him or her to take advantage of it. I am concerned about children who are not being offered an education. This is more likely in a domestic than in a school setting."
ReplyDeleteAn enlightening statement from Simon: children who fail in school don't matter because it's their fault that they don't take advantage of it, and so they don't matter.
Has he never considered that those in school who don't wish "to take advantage of it" might actually benefit from some sort of intervention because their home life might be a contributing factor in some cases? These cases would undoubtedly outweigh HE problems, but Simon wants to concentrate on HE. Funny, that.
'Has he never considered that those in school who don't wish "to take advantage of it" might actually benefit from some sort of intervention because their home life might be a contributing factor in some cases? These cases would undoubtedly outweigh HE problems, but Simon wants to concentrate on HE. Funny, that.'
ReplyDeleteI was actually involved for years in a project of this sort. When children were having difficulties at school and there was a sibling who was under five, they were invited to attend sessions held at a community centre. There was a social worker, Community Psychiatric Nurse, psychologist and me. We ran activiteis for the kids and a discussion group for the mothers. It was pretty successful, as far as one can tell about such things.
Actually, I had the impression that some home educators were opposed to this sort of thing; identifying children at risk of having problems at a very early age and then involving them in support services. The work with younger siblings and the stuff that we did with the mothers had a knock-on effect of helping the older kids who were already having problems at school.
Is that project still running - and replicated around the country?
DeleteI've no axe to grind one way or another about this sort of intervention - the important thing is that it's available when it's requested - but let's be clear that sheer weight of numbers means that most of the problems are associated with children in school. The obsession with HE is simply bizarre and irrational - even more so given limited resources.
''Has he never considered that those in school who don't wish "to take advantage of it" might actually benefit from some sort of intervention because their home life might be a contributing factor in some cases?'
ReplyDeleteI'm glad it wasn't me that said this! When I talked of truancy, it was suggested that it was all the fault of schools and local authorities. When I suggested that home background might be a factor, the idea was not well received.
'Is that project still running - and replicated around the country?'
ReplyDeleteNo, more's the pity. It was called the Rowhill Family Support Project and it folded up years ago through lack of funding.
"No, more's the pity. It was called the Rowhill Family Support Project and it folded up years ago through lack of funding."
ReplyDeleteThis makes the obsession with HE seem even more bizarre.
'This makes the obsession with HE seem even more bizarre.'
ReplyDeleteAh, I see. You think that I have an obsession with home education? I talk about home education here because this is a blog about home education. Presumably if it were a blog about birdwatching or steam trains, then I would be posting about those subjects instead.
A nice illustration of how Simon twists things out of context; Simon is obsessed with allowing LAs to routinely poke their noses into HE matters that aren't their business, but he transforms this into something quite different.
DeleteSimon said,
ReplyDelete"Obviously, for those who are unable or unwilling to educate their own children, there must be a safety net and the state will undertake the task on their behalf."
So it sounds as though you are in favour of forcing children like Jack back into school. How do you propose this is achieved without issuing fines and jailing parents, since your response to this suggestion previously was,
Simon said,
"Of course it would be worse. Whoever suggested such a thing?"
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"It is impossible to distinguish genuine home educators by this method."
In your opinion, but this doesn't make it true. I think it is possible to distinguish genuine home educators by this method. Judging by the number of social workers who are fooled during visits, I don't think anyone can claim that home visits are a panacea.
'Judging by the number of social workers who are fooled during visits, I don't think anyone can claim that home visits are a panacea.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think so either and nor did I say so. What I am saying is that when a parent sends an educational philosophy to a local authority, accompanied by a list of resources and perhaps photographs of an 'educational' visit to a park or some such as evidence; it is impossible to tell if this is a lot of guff or accurately reflects the education being provided for the child.
'So it sounds as though you are in favour of forcing children like Jack back into school. How do you propose this is achieved without issuing fines and jailing parents'
ReplyDeleteI am not at all in favour of this course of action. I would like to see advisors and helpers visiting families such as this and assisting them in putting together an education for the child which the parents can supervise. School does not come into the case.
And if Jack says no...again?
DeleteSimon said,
ReplyDelete"As others have pointed out, it is one thing for a child to be offered an education, but you cannot compel him or her to take advantage of it. I am concerned about children who are not being offered an education. This is more likely in a domestic than in a school setting."
So if the parent proves that they have taken their child to museums and activities, may via photos, receipts, corroborative statements from impartial observers such as workshop providers, etc., and prove that they have provided their child with a variety of resources (lists, receipts, photographs, etc), but the child does not avail themselves of the education, how does a home visit help provide any more information? If a child cannot be forced to partake of an education, asking them questions is pointless as a lack of ability or interest in talking about anything of educational value says nothing about what they were offered.
The natural extension of your assertion above is that the aim of a visit cannot be to judge the knowledge of the child; so what is it for? If it's to check out the home for resources to ensure the parent isn't lying, a parent capable of collecting together enough information to prove they provide resources on paper is surely capable of collecting together actual resources for a visit, even if they just borrow them. I'm struggling to see why you value a visit over *adequate* written proof.
"There was a social worker, Community Psychiatric Nurse, psychologist and me."... sounds like your wife , your carers & you all had a lovely time!
ReplyDeleteCan I ask Simon if you would have welcomed this...
ReplyDelete"I would like to see advisors and helpers visiting families such as this and assisting them in putting together an education for the child which the parents can supervise."
... for your own family when you were HEing?
'Can I ask Simon if you would have welcomed this...
ReplyDelete"I would like to see advisors and helpers visiting families such as this and assisting them in putting together an education for the child which the parents can supervise."
... for your own family when you were HEing?'
I was not talking about parents who are home educating, but those who are not.
It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mostly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty.
ReplyDelete—Albert Einstein
'It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mostly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty.
ReplyDelete—Albert Einstein'
I have seen this quotation bandied about before by home educators, but have never been able to track down the source. I have a biography of Einstein written in the 1970s and it is not mentioned there. Nor can I find it in any dictionaries of quotations. The earliest reference seems to be from around 1990. Since Einstein has been dead for almost sixty years, presumably there must be an earlier reference? Is this a genuine quotation, or something dreamed up and attributed to a dead man? I have certainly seen this done before; there was an example on this blog a few days ago. Perhaps whoever posted this comment could tell us the source?
See this page, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SpYuAAAAIAAJ&q=curiosity
DeleteScroll down for the quote from page 17. It appears to come from Einstein's Autobiographical Notes.
Quoted in "Autobiographical Notes", Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19.
ReplyDeleteHmmm so who do I believe about autonomous education - Simon Webb or Albert Einstein? Difficult choice. Not.
ReplyDeleteSimon said,
ReplyDelete"but have never been able to track down the source."
Couldn't have tried very hard - it only took a few minutes using Google.
"Couldn't have tried very hard" Simon doesn't try very hard to find out things he doesn't want to know ;)
ReplyDelete'Hmmm so who do I believe about autonomous education - Simon Webb or Albert Einstein? Difficult choice. Not.'
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point. Using Einstein in this way is essentially an appeal to authority. The person using the original quotation, as well as the person in the comment which I quote above, are both really saying, 'Einstein was a very clever man and he did not think much of conventional schools; therefore conventional schools are no good.'
The problem with an appeal to authority of this sort is that nobody is an expert in every field. Obviously, if Einstein had a particular view on physics, it would be wise to take his opinion as being very much worth listening to. He was the greatest expert on this subject. What about English literature, though? Would we appeal to Einstein as an expert in that and assume that he knew more about this than anybody else? What about geography? Medieval history? Education?
I am not sure why anybody would regard Einstein as an expert in geography or education, unless they were simple souls who were impressed by a famous name. I am bound to say that the very conventional education which Einstein received at school seemed to have stood him in good stead! Would he have found it quite so easy to formulate the theory of relativity if he had not studied calculus from an early age at school?
Perhaps those who feel that Einstein's views on education are worth listening to as seriously as we listen to his views on physics, could explain to us why they feel that this should be the case?
That is the longest apology and concession of defeat I've ever read.
Delete"Would he have found it quite so easy to formulate the theory of relativity if he had not studied calculus from an early age at school?"
ReplyDeleteMy totally autonomously home edded child is studying A level calculus at college and is a straight A* student averaging 97% so far. Yes my child was completely self taught and no my child didn't do any GCSEs. Maybe Einstein is telling us that he could have done even better without formal teaching.
"Using Einstein in this way is essentially an appeal to authority... 'Einstein was a very clever man and he did not think much of conventional schools; therefore conventional schools are no good.'"
ReplyDeleteNope it's saying Einstein was a very clever man, Simon Webb is a very ignorant man. Which source do I tend to regard as more informative? Einstein obvs.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Would he have found it quite so easy to formulate the theory of relativity if he had not studied calculus from an early age at school?"
According to a biography I read he studied science and maths at home on his own. Here's another description I managed to find on the internet:
“From this time on [after his 6th year at school], until he left the Gymnasium, his interest in physics, mathematics, and philosophy developed independently of his formal studies in school. His uncle Jacob, an engineer, and Max Talmey, a young medical student who had dinner that the Einstein’s house once a week beginning in the fall of 1889 until 1894, were great influences on Albert during his formative years... He especially prized his “sacred little geometry book,” a small book that dealt with plane geometry that was probably given to him by Uncle Jacob. The clear expositions in the book had a great impact on Albert, causing him to experience his “second wonder,” after the compass his father had shown him many years earlier. Later he received more advanced books and became proficient in analytical geometry and calculus.”
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5eWh2O_3OAQC&pg=
Sounds like autonomous education at it best to me.
So Einstein was qualified to comment after all. He experienced both formal teaching and autonomous learning and is in no doubt which is most successful and which contributed to his later achievements.
ReplyDelete'That is the longest apology and concession of defeat I've ever read.'
ReplyDeleteAh, so that is what I was doing! What was I aplogising for, might I ask?
'So Einstein was qualified to comment after all.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think that anybody was suggesting that he was not qualified to comment on education. The question was, whether his view on education should be afforded any more respect than another person's. It is a dangerous game, giving to much credence to one person and assuming that the more well known and intelligent somebody is, the more you should take notice of what they say about education.
After all, we would not say that just because some clever and famous person says that school is the best place for children, that means that we should take more notice of this opinion than that of an ordinary parent who does not want to send her child to school. Or would we?
"It is a dangerous game, giving to much credence to one person and assuming that the more well known and intelligent somebody is, the more you should take notice of what they say about education."
ReplyDeleteVery true. But after reading of his experiences, listening to his arguments, taking into account mine and my family's experiences of education over the years and seeing my children thrive on AE, I think I know who I believe knows best out of you and Einstein.
But after reading of his experiences, listening to his arguments, taking into account mine and my family's experiences of education over the years and seeing my children thrive on AE, I think I know who I believe knows best out of you and Einstein'
ReplyDeleteI think I see what you mean. You are apparently saying tIat you agree with Einstein not because he was famous and clever, but rather because he said something with which you agree. In short, you agree with people who seem to hold the same opinions as you, regardless of how famous and clever they were. That being so, why is Einstein's view of more importance than the man in the corner shop?
Simon said,
Delete"That being so, why is Einstein's view of more importance than the man in the corner shop?"
I didn't actually claim this, I merely pointed out the source of the quote for you since you were incapable of finding it and had asked for help.
As I said previously, I had read of Einstein's experiences and reasoning for his belief that a coercive, school type education damaged learning and that these theories made sense both as a result of his and my own experiences. I analysed his reasoning and compared his experiences and reasoning to my own experiences and reasoning. I didn't just believe everything he said because he is well known and famous for being intellegent nor did I just value his opinion and experiences because they agree with mine. They informed and added to my knowledge in this area. Isn't this how knowledge grows and opinions develop in most people?
I would however give his words more credance than the man in the corner shop because unlike most men in corner shops, Einstein experienced significant learning via both an education controlled by others and autonomous education and then took the time to reflect on and learn from his experiences.
You seem to think we should give equal weight to the opinions of both men. Why is this? If this isn't the case, who's opinion would you value most and why?
What are your views on his experiences, his analysis of his experiences, and his conclusions?
I think you are wilfully missing the point Simon. The point is - Einstein himself, as a product of autonomous self-directed learning, stands as repudiation of everything you write here on the subject.
ReplyDelete'Einstein himself, as a product of autonomous self-directed learning, stands as repudiation of everything you write here on the subject.'
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about the same Einstein, I suppose? That is to say the Albert Einstein who was born in 1879 and was a famous physicist? I ask, because I thought we might be talking at cross purposes. The Einstein I am thinking of attended school from the age of five onwards and continued in full-time education up to the age of seventeen. Most of this time, he was at German schools, which were not noted for their love of autonomous learning. You say that he was a product of self-directed and autonomous learning, but you might just as easily claim that his fantastic achievements were a direct result of one of the most rigid and inflexible school systems in Europe! How exactly is this a repudiation of what I have written here?
C'mon Simon you're being obtuse. The excerpt quoted above clearly states that his interest in physics and maths developed and was pursued independently of his formal studies. It seems reasonable to conclude that his oft quoted remarks about the holy curiosity of enquiry are based upon his own experiences of both systems. It is pretty clear which system Einstein himself felt was superior. I think it's reasonable to conclude that if he felt his genius was attributable to formal instruction he would not have condemned it. How many ways are you going to think up to wriggle out of simply acknowledging this?
ReplyDeleteAaah but you forget, Einstein is not qualified to comment on his own learning experiences, nor judge which of them was most beneficial for him, whereas Simon Webb is.
DeleteI would be interested in a reply about the benefits of home visits. Here's my original comment as a reminder.
ReplyDeleteSimon said,
"As others have pointed out, it is one thing for a child to be offered an education, but you cannot compel him or her to take advantage of it. I am concerned about children who are not being offered an education. This is more likely in a domestic than in a school setting."
So if the parent proves that they have taken their child to museums and activities, maybe via photos, receipts, corroborative statements from impartial observers such as workshop providers, etc., and prove that they have provided their child with a variety of resources (lists, receipts, photographs, etc), but the child does not avail themselves of the education, how does a home visit help provide any more information? If a child cannot be forced to partake of an education, asking them questions is pointless as a lack of ability or interest in talking about anything of educational value says nothing about what they were offered.
The natural extension of your assertion above is that the aim of a visit cannot be to judge the knowledge of the child; so what is it for? If it's to check out the home for resources to ensure the parent isn't lying, a parent capable of collecting together enough information to prove they provide resources on paper is surely capable of collecting together actual resources for a visit, even if they just borrow them. I'm struggling to see why you value a visit over *adequate* written proof.
You said "I was not talking about parents who are home educating, but those who are not."
ReplyDeleteSo just to be clear, had Einstein studied independently full time using autonomous and self directed learning instead of attending school, he would not have been home educated by your definition? And the child mentioned above who is now studying A level calculus very successfully without any prior formal teaching at all - that child wasn't home educated either, by your definition? That being the case Simon the name of your blog is disingenuous. You cannot be a home education heretic if the educational philosophy you consider yourself to be heretical about is not even home education by your definition.
I am the parent of the calculus child and I thought I'd mention that this child spent well over a year playing computer games and little else. This young person is now studying four A levels including maths, further maths and computer programing and is a top student in college looking at four A grades at A level and scholarship to university do an M Math or M Eng. This child has not received any formal teaching, including in reading and is most certainly extremely literate and numerate. Thankfully Simon Webb was never on my child's case. If Webb wants to argue my child did not receive an education then he simply shows himself up to be the arrogant ignoramus that he is.
ReplyDelete"nobody is an expert in every field."... & some Nobodies aren't expert in any field... as Mr. Webb is proof of time & again!...
ReplyDelete...Does ANYBODY actually visit this blog in seriousness? Or, like myself, are we all just here for a chuckle & to see what a truly repressed, narrow minded & pompously ignorant twonk looks like?
'shows himself up to be the arrogant ignoramus that he is.'
ReplyDelete' truly repressed, narrow minded & pompously ignorant twonk '
Once again, it is interesting to note how my attempts to have a fairly good humoured discussion of a topic end up with a lot of vulgar abuse! It is hard to imagine any other group of people who would become so angry and rude about the subject of an education which took place a hundred and twenty years ago. I don't think, under the circumstances, that there is much point in continuing this particular discussion.
They don't sound angry to me - more amused...
Delete"I don't think, under the circumstances, that there is much point in continuing this particular discussion." yes, that is your usual reaction to points you cannot answer.
ReplyDelete'"I don't think, under the circumstances, that there is much point in continuing this particular discussion." yes, that is your usual reaction to points you cannot answer.'
ReplyDeleteNo, it my usual reaction when people stop debating rationally and descend into name-calling and abuse.
Nope I was right the first time.
ReplyDelete'Nope I was right the first time.'
ReplyDeleteDear me, I suppose that now I should say, 'Oh no you're not!' and you will then respond by shouting, 'Oh yes I am!'
Unfortunately, I do not have time for this. If it is any consolation to you, I am planning to make a post about the whole Einstein business and the way in which his name is often used to support fringe beliefs. I am hoping that the level of debate will rise a little above that which we have seen here!
Which translates as you ignoring points you cannot answer and using a new post to re-state your position as if no-one spoke. Situation normal.
ReplyDelete'Which translates as you ignoring points you cannot answer and using a new post to re-state your position as if no-one spoke. Situation normal.'
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about this; not least because I do not have a definite position on Einstein's education and the extent to which his schooling contributed to his achievements. As you know, I am a dedicated home educator with a very poor opinion of schools and so do not want to dismiss this aspect of his education out of hand without giving it fair consideration.
The comments yesterday may be divided into two classes. On the one hand there was the question of the extent to which somebody who attended school from the age of five may fairly be described as an autonomous learner. This is interesting and I shall have something to say about it. There is also the way that proponents of fringe beliefs try and rope Einstein into support of their belief system. This too bears a little consideration.
The other type of post was the abusive ones. You say that I am ignoring points, but it is difficult to know what would be an appropriate rejoinder when somebody tells me that I am an arrogant ignoramus! Should I tell the person something along the lines of, 'Yeah, well you poo in your pants!' Tell me, how would you suggest that such points could be answered?
It seems to me that you do not read the comments made here, merely skim them for material you can use to support the view you hold. For example - the person who used the words "arrogant ignoramus" only stated that you would be demonstrating yourself to be one if you claimed their child did not receive an education. However you re-package this as a straight insult in order to support your angry home educator idea and simultaneously conveniently avoid having to address the point raised by this person and others - that children can play computer games exclusively for an extended period, receive no formal teaching and clearly still be in receipt of an education. You also sidestep the points made that Einstein's comment was clearly autobiographical and weight should be given to his view because he alone is in a position to judge what type of learning allowed his genius to flourish.
ReplyDelete+1
Deletejust one prejudice that isn't really thought through. Just one more assumption. In it's own time reading was considered dangerous for the younger generation.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.sky.com/story/1058337/video-games-can-be-good-for-kids-says-study
Wonderful blog! I found it while searching on Yahoo News.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Appreciate it
my web-site diets that work