Saturday, 2 November 2013

How autonomous home education was outlawed in this country over thirty years ago

One of the things which never ceases to amaze me is the enthusiasm shown by autonomous home educators in this country for the case of precedent set by Harrison and Harrison V Stevenson in the early 1980s. These idiots talk about this case as though it established their  right to educate their children autonomously, whereas in fact it had the effect of making the practice unlawful. To see why this should have been, we need to look at what was said during the judgement. It will be recalled that a woman called Iris Harrison was trying to assert her right not to teach her own children and the case hinged around the question of what might constitute a 'suitable education'. Children in this country over the age of five, must of course be provided with a suitable, efficient and full-time education, either at school or otherwise.

The judge at Worcester said, apropos of what might be meant by a 'suitable' education:

In our judgement 'education' demands at least an element of supervision; merely to allow a child to follow its own devices in the hope that it will acquire knowledge by imitation, experiment or experience in its own way and in its own good time is neither systematic nor instructive.

The judge went on to say that such a course, 'would not be education'. He then ruled specifically that a child not receiving systematic instruction in mathematics and English, if it were capable of learning them, could not be said to be receiving a 'suitable education'.

And there you have the matter in a nutshell. According to this key piece of precedent, any home educating parent who is not actually teaching or instructing his or her child in mathematics, is not providing a suitable education in the legal sense. Any parent leaving her child to acquire knowledge in her own way and in her own time is not causing that child to receive  a suitable education either.

The next time any home educators feel like quoting Harrison and Harrison V Stevenson, I do hope that they will realise that autonomous education was actually condemned by the judge in the case and that  home educating  parents who don't teach their children mathematics and English systematically, were told in no uncertain terms that they are breaking the law by failing to provide their children with a 'suitable' education.
at

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous2 November 2013 at 11:07

    I think that depends on what you mean by 'autonomous', Simon. Most of the autonomous home edders I know are very much child led, but far from leaving a child to their own devices and crossing their fingers and toes and hoping for the best, they seem to put a lot more work in than structured types like me, because they have to find the learning in everyday things and respond constantly to interests and generally be sneaky rather than saying 'here's your maths/english textbook, (dependent on which child you're addressing) sorry you don't especially like it, but adult life's full of stuff you don't especially like and the sooner you get used to it the better'. (Although we do have a mid-morning snack once the subjects of doom are completed and if they've been especially doom-filled we have biscuits as well, so I'm not totally heartless.)

    You can 'instruct' a child in mathematics without them ever seeing a text book. I couldn't do it because I'm a born control freak whose genes have cropped out in my children and we all like working that way, but that doesn't stop me admiring the creativity and dedication I see.

    And of course there are going to be some parents who don't act like that. In any system, there always will be, just as there are failing schools within the conventional system. I've still seen the child led approach work really well and the children go on smoothly into exam work when necessary so I wouldn't ever dismiss it.


    Atb
    Anne

    ReplyDelete
  2. Simon Webb3 November 2013 at 00:39

    ' I've still seen the child led approach work really well and the children go on smoothly into exam work when necessary so I wouldn't ever dismiss it.'

    I wasn't dismissing it; whether it is an effective educational technique is another matter entirely! I was merely pointing out that one encounters any number of home educating parents who flatly deny that they are providing their children with regular and systematic instruction in mathematics and English and that as things stand, they are breaking the law by failing to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3 November 2013 at 01:14

      How do you define 'effective educational technique', Simon? To me that would be a technique that achieves it's outcome.

      For some children, child led learning is effective, for others it isn't. For some children adult led learning works, for others it doesn't. For other children adult led learning works sometimes and child led learning works other times. Children are awkward like that, aren't they? It'd be so much easier if they'd read the textbooks and development and learning styles and make a point of following them.

      Only I can't help feeling life wouldn't be as interesting or varied if they did...

      Atb
      Anne

      Delete
  3. Simon Webb3 November 2013 at 03:30

    'For some children, child led learning is effective, for others it isn't. For some children adult led learning works, for others it doesn't. For other children adult led learning works sometimes and child led learning works other times.'

    All very true. I was just pointing out though that unless a home educating parent is providing regular and systematic instruction to her child in mathematics and English, then she is not obeying the law. This is not something which seems to be generally known; many parents having the idea that Harrison and Harrison V Stevenson made autonomous education legal.

    ReplyDelete