Saturday 30 March 2013
The converts to autonomous education
I was interested to see yesterday one of my most vociferous critics here, a keen autonomous educator, mention in passing that he or she had tried to teach a child to read at the age of two. We saw the same thing with David Hough up in Cambridge; the education begins in a way that many people would call hot-housing and then later, the parents are converted to autonomous education. This even happened with Mike Fortune-Wood, that arch apostle of the autonomous home education movement. He writes that at first he did ‘home at school’, and only later become a convert to autonomy. I have seen this sort of thing many times before, not only among home educators, but also with friends of ours who sent their children to school. One notable case was that of a man who began with ante-natal education, involving a loudspeaker pressed against his wife’s belly during pregnancy. (No, honestly, this was not me!) When the kid was born, he stuck labels on everything, so that the kid was seeing words like table and door at baby eye level. What is curious is that he gave all this up after six months and became strongly opposed to this sort of game.
I have remarked many times before that there is something a little fanatical and cult-like about some of the more enthusiastic autonomous types. It seems to be less a pedagogy and more a philosophy of life; almost a religion. Now as I am sure that readers know, converts are the very devil for being keen as mustard about their new faith. We see this with Catholics and I have also encountered it with those who convert to Islam and Judaism. Often, these characters are ten times more strict about their faith than those who were born into it. I am wondering if something of the sort might happen with those who are, as it were, converts to autonomous education? Anybody reading what Jan Fortune-Wood has to say about the education of children would surely think that her faith in autonomous education was bred in the bone, but it is nothing of the sort. A few years ago, she too was dead keen on ‘school at home’. She had an epiphany and was converted to the cause of autonomy; of which she is now a champion.
All this would make sense really. One notices that those who send their children to school and then change to home education are frequently more fanatical about the business than people like me who have been involved for decades. There definitely seems to be a different mindset among those who deregister their children, which sets them apart from those who did not send their children in the first place. This too has the feeling of a conversion.
I am not being dogmatic about this, it is just something which I have noticed over the years. Do readers know of any other well known autonomous educators who began by doing ‘school at home’?
Sorry to disappoint, but we didn't convert to autonomous education after failing at hot housing or 'school at home' using phonics. The phonics was offered as part of autonomous education, not instead of it. And we certainly didn't abandon phonics or structured teaching after it failed us because it didn't fail us and we didn't abandon it; phonics just didn't suit that particular child at that particular time. On different occasions at other ages, phonics was welcomed by all of our children to varying extents. They also all studied various other subjects in a structured, formal way by their own choice at various points during their home education. Just as you used both informal learning and structured learning in your parent-led approach, so we too used both in our child-led approach.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you equate early phonics with hot-housing, especially as you taught your daughter using flash cards from a very young age and had her reading fluently before she was 2 but also say that you did not hot-house her. Why is it hot-housing if other people do it, but not if it's you? [Looking again I see that you are suggesting that other people would see this as hot housing. I'm not sure of it's relevance here?]
But if someone did find that a structured parent-led approach were not working for their child as you imagine above, why would they be wrong to change their approach? Are you assuming that it was the parent's fault, they just got it wrong (unlike you), and that this approach will work with every child if only the parent does it right and had stuck with it? Or were they right to try another approach until they found one that worked?
Sounds like evolution to me.
ReplyDeleteWe started with AE, saw how damaging it was to our children and the children of other friends and so, after a few years, switched to a more flexible approach.
ReplyDelete'We started with AE, saw how damaging it was to our children and the children of other friends and so, after a few years, switched to a more flexible approach.'
ReplyDeleteYes, it does work the other way as well. I would regard this not as some weird species of religious conversion, but rather as the deluded having a 'Road to Damascus' type experience and suddenly seeing the truth!
'Sorry to disappoint, but we didn't convert to autonomous education after failing at hot housing or 'school at home' using phonics. The phonics was offered as part of autonomous education, not instead of it. '
ReplyDeleteVery curious about this! I quite understand that an autonomously educated child might ask for and be given formal teaching. It is not altogether clear to me how this would work with a two year-old. Did the child actually request to be taught, perhaps by saying something along the lines of, 'Please teach me the phonic elements of the Roman alphabet?' or did he just put up with what you had already chosen to impose upon him and you then interpreted his acquiescence as consent?
'I'm not sure why you equate early phonics with hot-housing, '
I don't. The expression was used in this context by somebody commenting here a few days ago. It seemed a reasonable expression to use as the antithesis of autonomous education.
'But if someone did find that a structured parent-led approach were not working for their child as you imagine above, why would they be wrong to change their approach? Are you assuming that it was the parent's fault, they just got it wrong (unlike you)'
People might change their approach for other reasons than that it was not working. I have certainly seen this. I don't think though that I would put it in terms of right and wrong. Intensive and structured teaching of a small child is very demanding and I have known quite a few people give up on it for that reason. I am not talking about home educators, but rather parents who began teaching their young children from birth, with the expectation that they would be attending school; the idea being to give them an advantage when they started school. My impression is that these people stopped, not because it was not working but rather because it meant that the parents had little time for anything else. having abandoned a project of this sort, one that they had boasted about to friends, there is a natural reluctance to say, 'I gave it up because it was too much like hard work!' Human nature will cause people rather to say, 'Oh, it wasn't good for little Joshua. It was making him stressed and I decided that it was actually quite cruel. I am now using a more natural and child-led approach.'
I do not say that this is always the explanation, but it is one that I have observed a number of times.
I think that we are semi-autonomous, or that's what I've been told. My teen has chosen her IGCSEs and she has even chosen the specifications and the exam boards. In one of her chosen ones, she got to choose her topics of study. According to some people that is 'autonomous education'. However, for two of them she didn't really have a choice, English and Maths are a must for getting into college. Those are the ones that they use to predict how you will do in other subjects. She chose the English exam that she sat though. I let her look at the specifications and how she would be assessed. She chose the specification that did not involve an oral exam; she chose the specification with the written paper only. The other IGCSEs she has chosen. Perhaps that is autonomous but somehow I don't agree. There is also the concept of unschooling and 'radical unschooling'. Apparently there is a difference between unschooling and autonomous education. I thought it was just semantics. Radical unschooling or totally autonomous seems to me to be akin to child neglect. People need boundaries, children need boundaries. They need to be told to brush their teeth and to go to bed. I have seen how some autonomously educated children behave and they are feral. There is no concept of boundaries or social skills.
ReplyDelete"Radical unschooling or totally autonomous seems to me to be akin to child neglect. People need boundaries, children need boundaries. They need to be told to brush their teeth and to go to bed."
DeleteI have known children who were given very strict boundaries at home by their parents but who ran wild once away from them. My (totally autonomous) children refused to play with one particular family at our home and made it a condition that we met them at the park because they damaged so many toys with wild, uncontrolled play. I'm sure there are problem families from all walks of life and an AE upbringing or one full of boundaries is no guarantee of particular outcomes.
'My teen has chosen her IGCSEs and she has even chosen the specifications and the exam boards. In one of her chosen ones, she got to choose her topics of study. According to some people that is 'autonomous education'. However, for two of them she didn't really have a choice, English and Maths are a must for getting into college'
ReplyDeletePrecisely the same process that we adopted. My daughter had a choice between history or geography, to give an example; but not about doing maths. We too discussed the difference between Edexcel and Cambridge.
'Radical unschooling or totally autonomous seems to me to be akin to child neglect. People need boundaries, children need boundaries'
Yes, I could hardly agree more.
'I have seen how some autonomously educated children behave and they are feral. There is no concept of boundaries or social skills.'
This is an interesting point and I have been considering a post about it. I have had emails on this subject from people who had to stop attending home education groups because of the behaviour of some of the autonomously educated children. Some of these kids had been home educated because their parents said that they had been bullied, but a number of other parents thought that they were probably on the point of being excluded themselves for bullying. As you say, no social skills and no boundaries; parents who refused to be parents and set limits for their children.
I found that bullying is alive and well with the parents. They have not left the school yard!
Delete'I found that bullying is alive and well with the parents. They have not left the school yard!'
ReplyDeleteThis too is something that I have heard about a lot. It is ironic to see the parents of supposedly bullied children, who are bullying other parents about their views. This goes some way to explaining the apparent unanimity of opinion in some home education groups about opposing visits from the local authority. In effect, those who say that they see nothing wrong with visits are bullied into keeping their mouths shut, by being denounced as quislings and collaborators.
It sounds like a case of everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it's the same as mine.
ReplyDelete'It sounds like a case of everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it's the same as mine.'
ReplyDeleteAnd there Charity, you touch the matter with a needle. Autonomous educators do tend to be pretty evangelical about their methods and get a little ratty when anybody disagrees with them. This is not just about education; it is a whole way of life. Some of these parents do not approve of set bedtimes, insisting on teeth cleaning or anything even remotely structured or, to use the jargon, coercive. Like the followers of any fringe belief system, they are a little touchy about their ideas and often react strongly, some might say aggressively, when asked searching questions. Since many home educating parents who attend home education groups do not have a particular ideology, just wishing to educate their own children, the only strongly held ideology on offer at such places often turns out to be autonomous education. It can be unnerving for other parents, because if they express a tentative view on something like visits from the local authority, this can unleash a firestorm of condemnation from parents who feel passionately about the matter. Many parents just choose to keep quiet and some have visits secretly, because they wish to remain in the group and not be seen as dissenters or heretics.
"Many parents just choose to keep quiet and some have visits secretly, because they wish to remain in the group and not be seen as dissenters or heretics."
DeleteI have a friend who does just that. She told me in confidence that she has visits from her Local Authority but did not want anyone else to know.
Another friend was bullied for meeting the inspector and she didn't even take her children with her! She almost ended up having a bad time with her LA because she believed the nutters. Now she has a good relationship with her LA inspector.
'I have a friend who does just that. She told me in confidence that she has visits from her Local Authority but did not want anyone else to know. '
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't think that this is uncommon.
' She almost ended up having a bad time with her LA because she believed the nutters. Now she has a good relationship with her LA inspector.'
I have explored this idea in the past; that some of the more extreme types are responsible for much of the confrontation between local authorities and home educators. They claim to be defending home education, but actually provoke more friction than there ever was before they became involved!
... Or it's just possible that many autonomous home educators are decent, friendly people. Within every strata of society there are bullies and their opposites, and every other type of person. To suggest a person is a bully because of their belief in xyz instead of because that's just the kind of person they are is to use prejudice to further an agenda against xyz.
ReplyDelete"It is not altogether clear to me how this would work with a two year-old. Did the child actually request to be taught, perhaps by saying something along the lines of, 'Please teach me the phonic elements of the Roman alphabet?' "
ReplyDeleteI don't know many autonomous home educators who perceived a particular need in their children to be able to read at the age of two. Most parents are happy to read to their children instead from day one, with the child often following the text and learning something of the skill that way, in their own good time.
Also even in autonomous households, parents of two year olds invariably choose the toys and these are often educational in nature. A child who has free access to such toys and parental engagement when sought, is by no means neglected, she is privileged. And of course there is no need for coercion at all.
On the subject of bed times and teeth cleaning, children tend to observe the behaviour of older family members and follow suit. I have never told me daughter she must clean her teeth and go to bed early, but because I do those things in her company, she does them too. Again, there is no neglect.
Or must I be issuing threats, bribes and punishments to be a proper parent according to the prevalent school of thought on this blog?
'I don't know many autonomous home educators who perceived a particular need in their children to be able to read at the age of two.'
ReplyDeleteOne of the people commenting here yesterday represented his or herself to be an autonomous home educator who had taught phonics to a child at the age of two.
'Or must I be issuing threats, bribes and punishments to be a proper parent according to the prevalent school of thought on this blog?'
Not sure about this! I have never punished my child, nor threatened or bribed her. I cannot of course answer for those who comment here. It is quite possible to have a structured education without punishment.
' Or it's just possible that many autonomous home educators are decent, friendly people.'
ReplyDeleteI have not the slightest doubt that this is true.
"I have never punished my child, nor threatened or bribed her."
ReplyDeleteThen you sound like a radical unschooling, autonomous home educator to me! And an extremely good parent.
'Or must I be issuing threats, bribes and punishments to be a proper parent according to the prevalent school of thought on this blog'
ReplyDeleteQuite a neat example of a false dichotomy of the kind often used against those who are dubious about autonomous education. Although nobody here has talked of threatening or punishing their children; the implication is plain. Anybody who is not wholeheartedly in favour of autonomous education must surely be getting their kids to learn by the threat of punishment! This tells us far more about the mentality of some of those who espouse this pedagogy than it does about structured education.
It doesn't matter how you home educate; what matters is that you don't force your views on others. I have seen the chasm between school at home educators and autonomous educators. The autonomous educators are more vociferous about their choices and tend to be supercilious
ReplyDelete'"I have never punished my child, nor threatened or bribed her."
ReplyDeleteThen you sound like a radical unschooling, autonomous home educator to me! And an extremely good parent.'
The first time that such an allegation has been made against me! if radical unschoolers can teach their babies to read when they are fifteen months old and then work according to a curriculum until the age of sixteen, getting the kid to take all sorts of examinations, both academic and artistic; then perhaps I am indeed a radical unschooler. A better question and fruitful area for debate would be, how would it be possible to achieve this sort of thing by the use of punishments and threats?
"Anybody who is not wholeheartedly in favour of autonomous education must surely be getting their kids to learn by the threat of punishment!"
ReplyDeleteOK, I'm genuinely puzzled. Let's say there are things your child does not want to learn, but which you think they should. Does this happen in families using the 'structured' method? If it does, what's the solution? Do you yield to the child, or enforce your own decision for the child's actions? Do you negotiate? Do you 'win' the argument? If so, how?
More explanation required! I must admit, I assumed the regime must be backed up by threats, bribes and/or punishments, this being the conventional style of parenting.
"if radical unschoolers can teach their babies to read when they are fifteen months old and then work according to a curriculum until the age of sixteen, getting the kid to take all sorts of examinations, both academic and artistic; then perhaps I am indeed a radical unschooler."
ReplyDeleteAh yes, I take your point. A radical unschooler would have no need or desire to require their child to perform in such a way.
"A better question and fruitful area for debate would be, how would it be possible to achieve this sort of thing by the use of punishments and threats?"
ReplyDeleteWhy would I ask this? I don't consider it to be a useful achievement. I don't want to achieve it myself, and I don't want to use punishments or threats!
A better question and fruitful area for debate would be, how to home educate one's child in the best way for him to find his métier, whatever that may be.
'OK, I'm genuinely puzzled. Let's say there are things your child does not want to learn, but which you think they should. Does this happen in families using the 'structured' method? If it does, what's the solution? Do you yield to the child, or enforce your own decision for the child's actions? Do you negotiate? Do you 'win' the argument? If so, how?'
ReplyDeleteThis really deserves an entire post to itself. In short, our lives were a partnership. My young daughter enjoyed going to various places and so did I. However, I also wished her to do things that she might not wish to do; such as sitting at a table and working for a few hours. There was a compromise, in that she would do the work and then we would go out. There were no threats or punishments. Had she refused to do the work, there would have been no unpleasant consequence, other than that I might not feel like putting myself out so that she could do what she enjoyed.
The question of whether this was bribing the child is an interesting one. If there was bribery, then you might as well say that she was bribing me. We both wished to go to the woods and so she did the academic work because she knew that this would put me in the right frame of mind. It was a matter of give and take. In practice, there was no real opposition and this was because she had been used to sitting and working with pens and paper from a very early age. To her, it was simply what one did in the morning. I can say that there I do not recall any serious opposition to the academic stuff. When she was little, it was just one of those things that was expected, like cleaning teeth. As she grew older, she had her own ambitions and knew that this tied in with them.
Thanks for the explanation. If you were offering choices and not demands and you were negotiating with each other and your daughter was happy, not compelled - then this, surely, was autonomous education? I am struggling to see it as not being.
ReplyDeleteYou say there was structure and curriculum, but I would argue that you can offer those things and if the child willingly accepts, there is no loss of autonomy for her.
'You say there was structure and curriculum, but I would argue that you can offer those things and if the child willingly accepts, there is no loss of autonomy for her.'
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point. Every parent soon learns that it is literally impossible to force children to do even something as simply as eating a carrot if she is determined not to do so. I defy anybody to teach mathematics or history to a child who has decided not to cooperate! So to that extent, I suppose that all education depends upon the willing partnership of the child. I think that building certain habits also helps. Reading was a habit which my daughter learned from birth. I recall giving her her bottle while I read the Telegraph. her face was only an inc or two in front of all those mysterious black squiggles. You have to ask what effect this had upon her and her desire to learn what this was all about!
Certainly I agree that making sense of and taking part in the world of the bigger people seems to be a primary motivation for learning in young children. But I disagree with "Every parent soon learns that it is literally impossible to force children to do even something as simply as eating a carrot if she is determined not to do so."
ReplyDeleteAs a child I was forced to eat carrots, cold congealed cabbage and all manner of other disgusting foods! I was told I would be hit, sent to my room, refused other food, refused other activity, lose my favourite toys etc, if I did not comply. So I complied, but it was against my will. I was made to comply with many other such diktats against my will, and most of my childhood was a battleground in which my parents always had the advantage and therefore usually won.
This kind of parenting causes long term damage to children. I know, because I was such a child and am still dealing with the psychological effects thirty years later.
I think this might be why some people are so aghast at the idea of conventional home education which has enforced structure, though I still think it would be wiser for them to mind their own business and let each family work out its own solutions without outside interference.
"though I still think it would be wiser for them to mind their own business and let each family work out its own solutions without outside interference."
DeleteHear, hear! I think it's fine for people to describe what worked for them - it's great to hear about the different parenting and teaching styles that have worked for different families. But I struggle to understand this need to convert others to your point of view. Yes, I can understand why people might argue their corner if they feel others are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what they are doing (as I have done below when answering Simon's question about toddlers and phonics), but I've no desire to convince others to do the same and am very happy that Simon's approach worked for his child. It's a shame he doesn't feel the same about our approach, but we are all entitled to our own opinions.
However, I do struggle to accept it without comment when people take action to reduce our freedom to bring our children up in the way that suits them best. Simon has done this by publicly attacking autonomous education and calling for the Government to take action against us.
Simon asked me,
ReplyDelete"Did the child actually request to be taught, perhaps by saying something along the lines of, 'Please teach me the phonic elements of the Roman alphabet?' or did he just put up with what you had already chosen to impose upon him and you then interpreted his acquiescence as consent?”
I’m astonished that you need to ask this question since you answered it yourself so well several years ago. Here’s a reminder in case you’ve forgotten.
“One of the most depressing consequences of a child attending school is the wholly artificial distinction which soon fixes itself in his mind about the difference between work and play, learning and leisure. The pre-school child knows nothing of this; playing and learning for him are indistinguishable and interchangeable. Playing with a puzzle or inset board is fun for the toddler, but at the same time he is learning furiously! Hand/eye co-ordination, fine motor skills, pre-reading skills are all given a good workout when the child plays with a game or puzzle which involves matching shapes and positioning them in certain spot. A parent reading a story book to a small child is pure pleasure for the child, but at the same time she is receiving a valuable lesson in literacy.”
So unless your idea of autonomous education involves a parent leaving a baby untouched until they are old enough to ask for food, cuddles, a play on a swing, to look at a book with their parent, to play with crumbs on a tray, etc. etc. why would you even ask your question? Like anything else with a baby, you offer cuddles and put them down if they protest; you play phonics games and stop if they protest. And if a child isn’t in the habit of doing things they don’t want to do just to please their parents, it should be clear from their responses that they are enjoying the activity for its own sake and not just acquiescing for a quite life.
'calling for the Government to take action against us.'
ReplyDeleteYes, we do need to ask ourselves how likely it is that the government are going to come on here and try to gauge my views on their future legislative programme! I think that my influence is grossly overestimated here.
Or possibly you are guilty of overstating your influence and misleading your readers. You have claimed previously (in Feb this year and in 2010), "Local authority officers read this blog, as do civil servants working for the Department for Education; so this is an opportunity to explain to them where they are going wrong!" and, “It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly.” There is also your newspaper article (metaphorical) call to arms in The Independent, "We must get tough on home schooling".
DeleteBut whether your actions are effective or not, my comment was an attempt to explain why some autonomous educators’ may push their theories in a defensive reaction to attacks such as this. They want to tell people about their theory and methods so that people can see that it isn’t laissez faire parenting or neglect. When we started home educating many years ago, AE was regularly attacked by people like you. Now possibly the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction these days, but possibly some of your readers may be interested in the history.
This autonomous education lark seems a rather contentious issue. It almost seems to bring about as much discussion has home education inspector visits.
ReplyDeleteWell the two are intrinsically linked, I think. Many (by no means all) local authority visits do not understand AE, so it's usually better for the parent to take control of the evidence they provide. Sarah Fitz-Claridge explains the far better than I can.
Deletehttp://www.fitz-claridge.com/node/19
local authority *visitors* do not
DeletePS Incidentally, I did hear of a LA visitor who told a parent that they were too structured and should be more child-led and informal. It seems we can't please all of the people all of the time.
Why do you think that is, Charity?
ReplyDeleteInsecurity is what it seems like to me. They are afraid that what they are doing won't be recognised as education by the inspectors. People who follow a structure and use the terms that the LA inspector will understand and have to use in their reports seem to have no qualms about having inspection visits. In Bradford if you are a structured educator you have no difficulties with the LA but I've been told that the autonomous educators do have problems with them.
DeleteThere is certainly a case for strengthening the position of autonomous education by raising awareness of it in official circles. As has been shown in comments here, AE is not synonymous with educational neglect, as some people think, and universal freedom to practice it if people want to, is a good thing.
DeleteBradford LA contracted out to Senco until recently. Is it back in-house again? If so, it is perhaps prime for being approached by local home educators, with a view to safeguarding their legitimate options.
"Bradford LA contracted out to Senco until recently. Is it back in-house again?"
DeleteI don't know.
I've been reading up on this autonomous education. It seems to work really well for people. I will definitely need to learn more about it. Again Simon, you have given me food for thought.
ReplyDelete