Now I am aware that home educators need to have supporters in parliament, but I cannot help thinking that they might be a little more cautious sometimes about whom they get into bed with; metaphorically speaking, of course. I wonder if anybody would care to guess who said the following at the beginning of 2010? Just to remind ourselves, this was when the recommendations of Graham Badman looked as though they were on the point of becoming law and there had been a huge amount of fuss about the whole business of home education. Anyway, this individual claimed at that time that it was;
'tantamount to child abuse not to make sure your children go to school. Without education no child has a chance of competing in the world and being able to make a decent, honest living.'
Notice the neat way that lack of school is equated with lack of education! He then went on to urge parents to remember how vitally important school was if you wanted your child to be educated. He suggested strongly that parents should
'follow their legal duty and send their children to be educated at school.'
Strong words indeed! Do many readers here agree that it is 'tantamount to child abuse not to make sure your children go to school'? A more important question might be, would you rely upon an MP with views such as these to represent your interests to the Department for Education?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm assuming you're quoting Graham Stuart. Could you save me time digging and post up the context in which he said it?
ReplyDeleteAtb
Anne
It was in this context.
ReplyDeleteSo Graham was talking about children who are registered at a school. In context his comments are accurate (which is more than can be said for Simon's quote, Graham doesn't say '*follow* their legal duty'). The parent's he is talking about do have a legal duty to send their children to school because they are registered pupils. Twisting people's words and quoting them out of context, yet again.
ReplyDeleteBTW, this is the third time you've used this quote as the basis for a post.
http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/truancy.html
http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/wonderful-quote-from-graham-stuart.html
A repeat of a repeat...
Well, he was talking about the BBC the other day; so maybe the urge to repeat everything is contagious?
DeleteAnne
I see you defended a charge of posting text without context previously by pointing out that you had included a link to the quote in you article. So this time you decided to post text without context because...?
ReplyDeleteObviously it was Graham Stuart's recent accident which brought him to mind. I was also thinking of those commenting on the cbeebies' programme who were angry to see school being treated as synonymous with education. It goes without saying that it makes no odds to me whether home educating parents want to rely upon somebody who feels that it is child abuse not to make sure that children go to school. It was such a bizarre thing for a supposed supporter of home education to say, that I thought it worth reminding readers.
ReplyDeleteGraham based his remarks on the assumption that parents who delegate their children’s education to schools will probably not provide an alternative education to them at home when they truant. Whilst we know that this is untrue for some parents, I'm sure you know of many families where this would be an accurate assumption, families where truancy means no education takes place. You are on record as suggesting that not providing a suitable education is abusive to children, so I’m not sure where exactly you disagree with Graham on this issue.
DeleteUnless you are suggesting that a child can gain a suitable education wherever they are and without any help or resources from an adult/carer/parent? Very progressive for you, I must say.
' You are on record as suggesting that not providing a suitable education is abusive to children, so I’m not sure where exactly you disagree with Graham on this issue. '
ReplyDeleteI differ from him in that I do not think that not attending school is the same as not receiving an education. I believe that it is possible for a child to be educated without going to school at all. This may indeed be a progressive view.
'Graham based his remarks on the assumption that parents who delegate their children’s education to schools will probably not provide an alternative education to them at home when they truant.'
You seem to be saying that the parents of children with school phobia, who are sometimes unable to drag their children to the school gate are abusing their children by not forcing them to go to school. Have I got that right?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I differ from him in that I do not think that not attending school is the same as not receiving an education."
What, even when the child is left to their own devices without support or resources provided by their parents or other adults? Or do you think that most truants are provided with a suitable education when they are not at school? Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that truants are receiving a suitable full time education?
Simon wrote,
"You seem to be saying that the parents of children with school phobia, who are sometimes unable to drag their children to the school gate are abusing their children by not forcing them to go to school. Have I got that right?"
Not at all. I have never suggested that not providing an education is abusive. I just pointed out that you and Graham seem to be in agreement on this point.
'Not at all. I have never suggested that not providing an education is abusive. I just pointed out that you and Graham seem to be in agreement on this point.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think so! Graham Stuart says that not making sure that children go to school is tantamount to child abuse. Had I thought this, then I probably have sent my daughter to school.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete“Notice the neat way that lack of school is equated with lack of education!”
In the context of the article he’s right, since he was talking about children registered at a school who are truanting. In 2002, for instance, only 13% of school children who were persistent truants gained good GCSEs compared to 60% for those who did not truant. A quarter of truants gained no qualifications at all compared to only 2% of non-truants. Unless you are now agreeing with those who claim that children don’t need qualifications? Do you think these truants are all very well educated but just haven’t bothered with exams?
You can't have it both ways. Either Graham is right, and children registered at a school who do not attend regularly do not gain a suitable education (on average), or you are right and they have a great education without attending school but just don't bother with exams.
'Or do you disagree and think that all truants are receiving a suitable education even if their parents do not provide support or resources?'
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think that all truants are; but doubtless some are.
So should Graham base his comments on the majority of truants who are not receiving a suitable education or on the tiny minority who might? Should the Government ignore truancy because a tiny minority will be fine? Or do you think that every comment such as this should be surrounded by provisos and what ifs? Do you think the newspaper would have quoted him in full if he had continued to say that a few children might receive an education despite truancy but the vast majority do not? I doubt that somehow.
Delete'You can't have it both ways. Either Graham is right, and children registered at a school who do not attend regularly do not gain a suitable education (on average), or you are right and they have a great education without attending school but just don't bother with exams.
ReplyDeleteThese are not the only two choices. I shall be posting about this today.
Nothing in the new post contradicts the fact that only a tiny minority of truants are like your daughter and receive a suitable education at home.
Deletethx
ReplyDelete