Thursday 28 March 2013

The autonomous acquisition of literacy in home educated children




One of the most commonly held beliefs among  certain  British home educators  is that it is unnecessary to teach children to read; that they will somehow just ‘pick it up’ naturally, just like walking and talking. I don’t claim that this is impossible, but I can certainly say that in every such case that I have been able to investigate, there is more to the business than at first meets the eye. I want today to look at a classic example of this sort of thing. 

     Here is an item from a local newspaper in Cambridgeshire;

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Are-home-educated-children-better-off.htm

Now let us examine what is said here about the way that this child  supposedly learned to read. This is, according to the parents, an autonomous education.  We are told  that:

‘Kit was not forced to read, but instead started to pick it up when he realised it would be useful for him to learn about other things.’

We also read that;

‘he didn't want to start learning to read until he was six, and has rejected the system of phonics which is used in many schools.’


This is  fairly typical of the  kind of claims made by autonomous home educators about the learning of reading. According to this account, at the age of six this boy started to pick up reading because he realised that it would be useful. He was not forced to learn and had no dealings with phonics; that is to say learning the sounds of individual letters.

Really, if it is this easy, you wonder that anybody bothers teaching children to read at all! Why not just let them pick it up naturally like this, in their own time?  All that work in schools on teaching phonics to five and six year-olds and here is a kid who begins to read at the same age as most schoolchildren,  without any fuss; he just learns  by himself when he is ready. A  classic case of the autonomous acquisition of literacy. Except of course, it is all complete nonsense. I happen to know this for a fact. Here is what the child’s mother wrote six years before that newspaper report:

22 December 2003
…has been having a wonderful time of late learning things like numbers and letters. He was transfixed by the Sesame Street DVDs on the subjects, but was restless when I tried to do some alphabet with him today. I wrote letters in his sketchbook and he furiously scribbled them out. We came into the computer room and fired up nickjr.co.uk, which has some lovely games for 2 year olds, in case you never knew. When he knew the very same set of letters in the very same order as Mummy, suddenly it started clicking. Mummy was NOT making this up to be cruel. This is some secret code he needs to learn. As in he thinks he needs to learn it now, not just Mummy thinks he needs to learn it. He's not expert at mouse moving yet, and clicks tend to happen not at all or 30 in a row, but he likes to point to the screen and make choices and have me click on them for him. Today's winners seem to be the letter K and the letter Z. He's always been a big fan of S. 

That entry was made when the child was two years and three months of age and as we can see, one of the parents has already begun teaching her son to read. The method that she is using is of course phonics; teaching her son the letters of the alphabet and the sounds that they make. A month later, in January 2004, when the boy was two years and four months, his mother was using flashcards of letters and numbers to teach him. A month after that, her efforts began to pay off, because by February 3rd 2004, the child could recognise every single letter of the alphabet and the associated sounds. Not bad for a boy who is still only two years and five months old.

Now there is nothing at all wrong with any of this; I did exactly the same with my own daughter. It is called teaching a child to read and, just like me, this parent thought that the earlier that you undertake the process, the better. Let us now look at that newspaper report again;

‘he didn't want to start learning to read until he was six…started to pick it up when he realised it would be useful for him to learn about other things’

At best, this is exceedingly misleading; at worst, a complete falsehood. He was being  taught to read  systematically four years before he was six, by phonics; the same method used in schools. Anybody think that this might have some bearing on his acquisition of literacy?

Tomorrow, we shall be thinking a little   about this sort of deception. What motivates home educating parents to teach children to read and then pretend that their children have learned to read without any structured teaching? It is common enough and I know of many  such cases. We shall look at why people do this and also consider the ill effects that accounts of such supposedly autonomous learning can have  upon gullible parents who are persuaded that if their children are left to their own devices, then they too will somehow just ‘pick up’ the ability to read.

47 comments:

  1. I think a lot of it is basking in reflected glory where parents wish to associate themself with the success of their children so that some of the success becomes their own. If a child can learn to read on their own then perhaps they inherited their cleverness from their parents?? I recently told a work colleague that my son had got a job as a printed information delivery manager and she was quite impressed. She was a little less impressed when I then explained he had got a job as a paper boy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'if a child can learn to read on their own then perhaps they inherited their cleverness from their parents??'

    Ah, Cheshire Cat, you have anticipated tomorrow's episode! Yes, this is of course precisely why parents play this sort of game. Any kid can learn to read when being taught at school, but just see how clever mine is; he learned all by himself! It is not only the parents of home educated children who play these games, of course. I have known parents of teenagers at school bemoan the fact that their children have done no revision for GCSEs and hardly work at all at school. When the glittering results arrive, it makes the kids look brilliant; after all, they didn't have to work at it at all! Nobody remembers all the tutoring that the parents paid for over the years, nor their determined efforts to get their son into the best school, nor all the nagging about homework.

    The other thing is of course, that we none of us want to appear like pushy parents. Being laid back and unconcerned about our child learning makes us look really cool and with it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, got it wrong again! I am anything but laid back and unconcerned about their learning, so therefore I am not cool and with it. Ah well, I'd always suspected I wasn't...

      That said, I never consciously taught my 2 to read or count, but we did count cars, train carriages, train steps, lift floors, and I read aloud to them a lot and put my finger under the words as I did it. I did have to teach them the alphabet though; which felt a bit back to front.

      If you're in an educationally rich environment where people enjoy learning, it will rub off. I could easily see how a child in that world and with the right temperament could thrive without any formal input simply because the parents encouraged them.


      Atb
      Anne

      Delete
  3. Yet another repeat of a repeated post I believe? I've lost count of the number of times you've brought this same example up.

    For what it's worth, we also taught our son to sound out the letters when he was very young. He knew well over half of the alphabet before he lost interest. He then learnt a few of them again at 5 before losing interest again. He learnt the sounds of various letters off and on for many years, and between each spurt of interest he forgot more than he remembered, so I have no difficulty at all in believing that the child described in your article learnt his letter sounds at 2, forgot them, and then re-learnt them when he was 6. The descriptions you have posted show a mother responding to her child's cues, though possibly they were a little slow to respond to his obvious lack of interest at 2.

    As to whether children can learn to read without teaching, I think that depends on how you define, teaching. Many people seem to use a narrow definition – thinking in terms of workbooks at the kitchen table and other parent-led and controlled activities, a child having to learn their parent’s choice of material whether they are interested or not.

    By this narrow definition we did not teach our daughter to read but she was reading by age 3. Yes, she watched TV programmes that included phonics information, we played word games like I Spy, listened and sang along to alphabet tapes, sounded out the letters we saw from day to day, like street signs, etc, etc. To my mind this is teaching, but many people would not describe it as teaching, since it happens in exactly the same way as things other people seem to describe as play.

    I’ve never really understood the difference myself, and I believe you have the same opinion, Simon. We just need to understand and accept that not everyone sees the world in the same way as we do and seem to need to divide work and play into separate activities. It doesn’t mean they are lying, it just means they view things differently.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't see why having a child who has taught themself should reflect any better on the parent. I have one child who figured out reading for himself (I know you don't believe this is possible, but he did) and two more who I taught to read. I can't claim any personal responsibility for my first child's early reading, but I do feel rather proud that I did such a good job of teaching the other two!

    You've written yourself, Simon, many times of how you very successfully taught your own daughter to read at a young age, and you're obviously (rightly!) proud of yourself for doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'Yet another repeat of a repeated post I believe? I've lost count of the number of times you've brought this same example up. '

    Yes, this is because these stories are still circulating like urban myths and drawing in foolish parents. I want to make sure that people know what is going on.

    'It doesn’t mean they are lying, it just means they view things differently.'

    Not sure about this! If a parent teaches a child to read intensively from the age of two and then later claims that the kid just picked up reading without any help at the age of six; this is hardly being truthful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ' I have one child who figured out reading for himself (I know you don't believe this is possible, but he did) and two more who I taught to read. I can't claim any personal responsibility for my first child's early reading, but I do feel rather proud that I did such a good job of teaching the other two!'

    I don't say that it is impossible. I am worried that the process is misunderstood by some parents and results in their simply waiting for a child to learn to read. I have had many emails form angry parents who feel cheated because they have waited for their kid to pick up reading and it has not happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do people really base their child's education on short newspaper articles like this? All of the descriptions of AE sound much like the diary you quote, plenty of resources, support and opportunities to learn, but following the child's lead and pace. There is no suggestion that children will learn in a resource and support free vacuum.

      Delete
  7. "Not sure about this! If a parent teaches a child to read intensively from the age of two and then later claims that the kid just picked up reading without any help at the age of six; this is hardly being truthful."

    You make it sound as though he was taught intensively between 2 and 6 years of age. All you have is a description of two months at age 2. I notice that the mother says, "We'll start practicing the alphabet soon, but at the pace he sets." So it's quite possible (and likely judging by her comments in the newspaper article) that the child stopped being interested in the alphabet and the parent's followed his pace. What's so difficult to understand about a child who learns the letters of the alphabet at 2, then forgets most of them and re-learns at 6? I've seen it happen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'What's so difficult to understand about a child who learns the letters of the alphabet at 2, then forgets most of them and re-learns at 6? I've seen it happen.'

    I think you are missing my point here. A child who teaches himself to read at the age of six is unusual and might shed some light upon the acquisition of literacy. A child who has been drilled in phonics and taught to read tells us nothing more than that the methods used in schools can be very effective. This was not only the odd session when the kid was two, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This was not only the odd session when the kid was two, by the way."

    It's a bit pointless having a conversation about an education about which we (or possibly only I) know so little about. Maybe you could describe his education in a little more detail? How many hours, over how many months/years, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Do people really base their child's education on short newspaper articles like this?'

    Not entirely, no. But reading this sort of thing certainly might give a parent considering taking her child out of school the wrong idea. She might think that her child will just pick up reading. Other articles about home educated children getting into Oxford without any GCSEs or A levels will also affect some parents choices for their children. This stuff is pernicious and if I repeat myself here, it is because we see the same tired old myths being trotted out over and over again. People like Chris Ford and Alex Dowty have been a staple of home education anecdotes for years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "A child who teaches himself to read at the age of six is unusual and might shed some light upon the acquisition of literacy."

    I'm not sure how? Unless you can read the child's mind or they are able to describe the process in detail. In our household there were plenty of resources, we read to our children, fingers under the lines, TV programmes about phonics etc, much as Anne describes. My daughter was not drilled in phonics, we did not do flash cards, but she gained the same information in a more informal, possibly a bit 'hit and miss' way, and learnt to read by 3. What does that tell you about literacy that we don't already know?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'It's a bit pointless having a conversation about an education about which we (or possibly only I) know so little about. Maybe you could describe his education in a little more detail? How many hours, over how many months/years, etc?'

    I am hesitating here, although the mother did put up all this information on a site that she created. It contains no fewer than thirteen ante-natal scans of the child in question, along with dozens of photographs for every month of his life! On reflection, I don't think that I shall post a link, because the child himself is now eleven. However, I can assure readers that I have never seen such a comprehensive account of any child's early education.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well of course I've seen that web site, I've already quoted from it (the bit where the mum says she is following the pace her child sets). Nothing there suggests intensive teaching over years as you seem to suggest. I thought you must have access to different information.

      Delete
  13. '"A child who teaches himself to read at the age of six is unusual and might shed some light upon the acquisition of literacy."

    I'm not sure how?'

    Because most educationalists believe that reading must be taught and the fact that children start reading at school is attributed to their being taught. If this child really had simply learned to read spontaneously without systematic instruction, it would be very unusual. As it is, he was taught to read, just like almost every other child. This means that he was not an exceptional case and simply confirms the generally held view.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "If this child really had simply learned to read spontaneously without systematic instruction, it would be very unusual."

    This is where we differ. I don't think that these descriptions show that children learn to read spontaneously, quite the reverse, in fact. I agree there is often no systematic instruction, but learning through play is usually what happens. As I say above, some people do not count this as 'teaching', but it's certainly not spontaneous learning that happens in some kind of resource and support free vacuum and I see no contradiction between the descriptions of David’s early learning experiences and the later newspaper report.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "As it is, he was taught to read, just like almost every other child."

    The newspaper article states that he rejected the phonics teaching method. It's entirely possible that in the months following the diary entries he did exactly that. The suggestion that this rejection is beginning is already there when the mother writes, "I wrote letters in his sketchbook and he furiously scribbled them out."

    In my experience, this is quite likely to have ended in the child avoiding learning about letter and letter sounds, forgetting most of it, and then re-learning to read a few years later, possibly in a completely different way. This may or may not have happened in this case but I've seen this happen in my own family, so I know it's a possible explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the diary and newspaper article.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'This may or may not have happened in this case but I've seen this happen in my own family, so I know it's a possible explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the diary and newspaper article.'

    Perhaps so, but telling people that a child, ' didn't want to start learning to read until he was six' and 'started to pick it up when he realised it would be useful for him to learn about other things’ is misleading. It might easily lead to gullible parents believing that this happened without any systematic teaching, which was not at all the case. I am making the point here that as it stands, this newspaper article is likely to deceive. Few people reading it would guess that this is a child who has been taught to read just like almost every other child in the country. We are invited to believe that he simply 'picked it up'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "It might easily lead to gullible parents believing that this happened without any systematic teaching, which was not at all the case."

    Do you mean the phonics teaching at 2 years of age? If so, does this count if it was forgotten by the time he was 6? This is what happened with my child. Or do you have evidence of systematic teaching at 6?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'Do you mean the phonics teaching at 2 years of age? If so, does this count if it was forgotten by the time he was 6? This is what happened with my child. Or do you have evidence of systematic teaching at 6?'

    I probably have not made myself clear enough. What I meant to convey was that if a child is taught to read, then it is not altogether surprising that he can read. It would be a little out of the ordinary if he were able to read without being taught, but that is not the case here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I probably have not made myself clear enough."

    And you are still not making yourself clear. Are you talking about the phonics teaching at 2 years of age? It's a very, very simple question.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Simon said,
    "However, I can assure readers that I have never seen such a comprehensive account of any child's early education."

    It looks like a description of normal family life to me. Yes, children learn constantly so of course it's an education, but most people would not call this 'systematic teaching' - it's living life. There are descriptions of gym classes, swimming, learning how to wash hands, potty training, playing, etc.

    Do you really think that parents believe that they shouldn't do things like this with their children after reading newspaper articles like the one you link to above? Especially as they specifically mention teaching Kit:

    "If Kit expresses an interest in a subject, that's what we teach him, and depending on the subject, we find we can throw in some maths, some geography, or some English.

    "If you can teach him about what he is interested in, he is more receptive to learning.

    Most of the teaching is done by Susan, a 48-year-old American, and the system's flexibility means there is no such thing as a timetable, and that much of the learning can be spontaneous, for example, on a car journey.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  21. My child learned to read completely spontaneously and autonomously (though definitely Sesame Street videos were a factor). Why do I know this? Because by the time she learned to read (not quite 3) I'd never have dreamed of doing anything to teach her to read. I was as amazed as anyone else when she started reading quite complex sentences and signs, unprompted, on a shopping trip.

    The noted working class author, Jack Common, told of a similar very-early-years epiphany (again just shy of 3, I think) in his novel Kiddar's Luck. Of course, it was even more likely to have been completely autonomous as the Edwardian working class had neither Sesame Street nor phonics books to help them.

    The point is that if it works for early readers, why can't it 'just click' for children who follow a more leisurely route?

    ReplyDelete
  22. 'The point is that if it works for early readers, why can't it 'just click' for children who follow a more leisurely route?'

    The point is not whether this can happen; it almost certainly can. We need to consider whether this is a better course of action for the average child than systematic teaching. This is less certain, as we do not have all that much data. In any case, this is not relevant to the case at which I looked above, which was of a child being taught to read in the conventional way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In any case, this is not relevant to the case at which I looked above, which was of a child being taught to read in the conventional way."

      You have not proved this, you have just called the mother a liar without evidence. Constantly repeating a 'fact' does not make it true.

      Delete
  23. 'Do you mean the phonics teaching at 2 years of age? If so, does this count if it was forgotten by the time he was 6? This is what happened with my child. Or do you have evidence of systematic teaching at 6?'

    Of course there is evidence of systematic teaching at six! At two, the mother is teaching the child to read; at eight, she is drilling him in his multiplication tables. Your belief is apparently that she was an enthusiastic teacher when he was two and eight, but stopped teaching for six years in between those ages! It is unlikely, but perhaps you can tell us why you believe this to be the case?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Simon wrote,
    "Your belief is apparently that she was an enthusiastic teacher when he was two and eight, but stopped teaching for six years in between those ages! It is unlikely, but perhaps you can tell us why you believe this to be the case?"

    Not at all, of course she carried on teaching her child between 2 and 6 but she was guided in that teaching by her child’s preferences. The mother stated that her son rejected the phonics approach to learning to read in the article and the beginnings of this rejection is clearly described in the diary, so the diary and article are consistent on this point. The mother followed the child’s lead and presumably taught him things he wanted to learn instead (some of that teaching is summarised in the article).

    Simon wrote,
    “at eight, she is drilling him in his multiplication tables.”

    How does learning times tables by systematic instruction (presumably at the request of the child since they are AE) rule out the possibility that the child learnt to read more informally and without systematic instruction? There doesn’t appear to be a logical connection between the two points. You have already stated that you believe that children can learn to read informally without structured teaching. Can you say why you do not believe the mother in this instance?

    ReplyDelete
  25. '"In any case, this is not relevant to the case at which I looked above, which was of a child being taught to read in the conventional way."

    You have not proved this, you have just called the mother a liar without evidence. Constantly repeating a 'fact' does not make it true'

    This really is a bit much. I have not called the mother a liar at all. She has been open about teaching her child and has never made a secret of it. The child's father, David Hough, claimed in a newspaper interview that his son had just picked up reading. Could you either explain to us how I have called Kit Hough's mother a liar or stop saying such ridiculous things?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My mistake, you called his father a liar. You have not proved this, you have just called the father a liar without evidence. Constantly reapeating a 'fact' does not make it true.

      Delete
  26. 'How does learning times tables by systematic instruction (presumably at the request of the child since they are AE) rule out the possibility that the child learnt to read more informally and without systematic instruction? There doesn’t appear to be a logical connection between the two points. You have already stated that you believe that children can learn to read informally without structured teaching. Can you say why you do not believe the mother in this instance?'

    I do believe the mother. She said that she taught her son to read and I take her word for this. The whole debate here is becoming a little mad. A child was given systematic instruction in reading and he was later able to read. You say that there might be no connection between these two things; I think it more likely that there was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon wrote,
      "I do believe the mother. She said that she taught her son to read and I take her word for this."

      She did not say that she taught her son to read. She said that they did some phonics over a couple of months when her son was 2 months old. His father later says that he rejected this approach and the mother describes the beginnings of this rejection in her diary entries.

      This is not a description of a child learning to read, it's a description of a family testing the waters with an approach that failed. Unless you are saying that the father lied when he made this claim in the newspaper article?

      Delete

  27. 'She did not say that she taught her son to read. '

    Almost out of patience with this! The mother said that she trained him at the age of two to identify and name elements of an alphabetic script when shown out of context. This is reading. If you do not wish to believe that there was any connection between the child being taught to read and his later ability to read; that is fine. You are welcome to believe this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would be very surprised if a few sessions in phonics over a couple of months at age 2 accounts for a child's reading skills at 6. There is no evidence that this teaching formed the basis of his reading at 6. I also taught a child phonics at 2 and they had forgotten it a few months later, let alone several years. If knowledge like this isn't used from day to day it is lost. Do you really think that a couple of months of instruction at 2 years of age (that was rejected by the child at the time) accounts for a child's ability to read at 6?

      You have previously remarked on the amount of learning children forget during the six weeks school holidays, yet now you expect a 2 year old to remember a few sessions fully and accurately several years later. I'm surprised you ever qualified as a primary school teacher. Or maybe you were such a good teacher that all of your pupils remember everything you said even today?

      Delete
  28. 'My mistake, you called his father a liar. You have not proved this, you have just called the father a liar without evidence. Constantly repeating a 'fact' does not make it true.'

    You are a little too fond of using the word 'liar'. The father, when I exchanged messages with him some time ago, was not aware of the work with flashcards of letters and numbers. There is clearly some deception going on, but it is impossible to be sure who is deceiving whom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon wrote,
      "There is clearly some deception going on, but it is impossible to be sure who is deceiving whom."

      So somebody is a liar but you don't know who?

      Simon wrote,
      "You are a little too fond of using the word 'liar'."

      How hypocritical when you immediately follow this comment with the suggestion that, 'there is clearly some deception going on'.

      Delete
  29. 'I also taught a child phonics at 2 and they had forgotten it a few months later, let alone several years.'

    It is interesting to see how many autonomous educators seem to have flirted in this way with extremely early education. Few parents set out to teach their children at the age of two and yet this seems to crop up pretty often with dedicated autonomous home educators. I cannot help but wonder whether some of these people start out eagerly trying to teach their children and then muff it up, causing stress to the kids. As a reaction, some of them then change their views entirely and reject all formal teaching. It would certainly explain a great deal.

    As I have said several times already, when children have been taught to read, they are often later able to read. There is frequently a direct and strong association between these two things; the teaching and the acquisition of the ability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon wrote,
      “It is interesting to see how many autonomous educators seem to have flirted in this way with extremely early education.”

      Autonomous education includes the parent providing resources and suggestions whilst following and reacting to the child's cues *before* they become distressed and coerced, so no, you are way off the mark there, at least for this family. Of course education begins from birth for most children, so no, we didn’t flirt with early education, it was a way of life. However, we were as happy for them to learn to work a swing, ride a bike, swim, make sandcastles or do a front roll as we were for them to learn to recognise letters of the alphabet, and as far as the children were concerned there was no distinction.

      Simon wrote,
      “Few parents set out to teach their children at the age of two and yet this seems to crop up pretty often with dedicated autonomous home educators.”

      Really? I thought it was normal to teach colours, names of animals, to sing rhyming songs, etc. from a very young age. Don’t you count this as teaching?

      Simon wrote,
      “As a reaction, some of them then change their views entirely and reject all formal teaching.”

      Formal teaching is not anathema to AE and played a significant part in our children's education. One of our children learnt to read without formal instruction by age 3, another learnt largely through the look and say/real book methods with a little basic phonics thrown in, and another learnt using an extremely structure phonics approach. Later we used various textbooks, evening college courses, correspondence courses etc. for various subjects and interests.

      Simon wrote,
      “As I have said several times already, when children have been taught to read, they are often later able to read. There is frequently a direct and strong association between these two things; the teaching and the acquisition of the ability.”

      I have no doubt that there is an association between being taught to read and being able to read. I saw this with all of my children so I would never dispute this. I don’t think that it needs to be done in a structured, parent-led way, but even my early reader was taught if we include playing games, answering questions, watching TV programmes, playing computer games, reading to them, etc. as examples of teaching. Many people don’t seem to count this as teaching, and if you think it’s rare for parents to provide early education to their babies and toddlers, maybe you are one of these people.

      However, I do disagree with your interpretation of what happened in this family you discuss in the blog article. There is much too little evidence to support your interpretation that the child learnt to read at 6 largely as a result of a few phonics lessons at age 2.

      Delete
  30. 'So somebody is a liar but you don't know who?

    Simon wrote,
    "You are a little too fond of using the word 'liar'."

    How hypocritical when you immediately follow this comment with the suggestion that, 'there is clearly some deception going on'.'

    That some deception is going on is undeniable. Whether this is a consequence of the deliberate telling of lies is less clear. What cannot be doubted is that the readers of the newspaper article have been grossly misled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What cannot be doubted is that the readers of the newspaper article have been grossly misled."

      Of course it can be doubted. You have not provided enough evidence to counter the newspaper article by a long chalk.

      Delete
  31. Simon wrote,
    "That some deception is going on is undeniable. Whether this is a consequence of the deliberate telling of lies is less clear."

    So pedantic. To deceive someone means, to cause them to believe what is not true, typically to gain some personal advantage. How is this different from lying?

    ReplyDelete
  32. 'Simon wrote,
    "That some deception is going on is undeniable. Whether this is a consequence of the deliberate telling of lies is less clear."

    So pedantic. To deceive someone means, to cause them to believe what is not true, typically to gain some personal advantage. How is this different from lying?'

    Welcome to home education world; where everything is black and white! It is a land where nobody ever exaggerates for effect, where nobody ever gets muddled up or conveniently 'forgets' something. In this world, husbands and wives always tell each other every detail of what they do with the kids, so that there can be no confusion and there is none of that nonsense you get in the real world, where people tell stories from a slightly slanted angle in order to show themselves to best advantage! No, sireee! There are only truth tellers or liars and if you are not one then you must certainly be the other! try to get out a little more, anonymous and meet a few real, ordinary people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to apologize, Simon, it's not the first time you''ve been confused. Using a word that implies negative and devious motives when you meant an accidental misunderstanding is an easy (!) mistake to make.

      Delete
  33. 'Using a word that implies negative and devious motives'

    This not at all the case. A deception is essentially the act of deceiving other people. Sometimes this is done deliberately, but often as a result of somebody also deceiving themselves and putting a certain construction upon their own actions. This need not be devious; it can be done quite innocently. The end result is none the less a deception. That is why I said in the post:


    'At best, this is exceedingly misleading; at worst, a complete falsehood. '

    I have no idea where, on the scale which lies between these two extremes , the present case falls. I do get a little weary sometimes of having to explain the meaning of ordinary, English words!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon said,
      "'At best, this is exceedingly misleading; at worst, a complete falsehood.'"

      So rather than saying that the father lied, you said he either mislead or lied to people, not a huge improvement on saying that he lied. None of the evidence you've presented so far justifies such a slur.

      Delete
  34. So when you quoted a couple of phrases out of context from the EO article autonomous education and also falsely stated that the mother had said her children could not read, did you intentionally deceive your readers or was it a case you you deceiving yourself and remembering your own version of the rest of the article?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I truly love your blog.. Pleasant colors & theme.

    Did you create this website yourself? Please reply back as I'm wanting to create my own website and would love to know where you got this from or just what the theme is called. Thank you!

    Feel free to surf to my homepage: online graduate certificate programs

    ReplyDelete