Thursday 28 November 2013

Local authorities and education



Over the next few days I want to look at why local authorities wish to see children attending school and the related question of why some authorities are a little dubious about home education.

The first question  to examine is why actually local authorities care at all about whether children are receiving an education. Because many home educators are obsessed with imaginary conspiracies, the obvious answer to this question is hardly ever considered.  Expressions like ‘box tickers’ are used, and ideas put forward along the lines that forcing children to attend school has some sinister motive, which only shrewd and intelligent home educators are able to discern.  Perhaps it is about social control or trying to impose uniformity upon the citizens of the nation?  There is a a fairly vociferous strand in British home education which goes even further and asserts that compulsory education is a wicked plot by some vague and largely invisible cabal; sometimes the Illuminati, for others Jewish plutocrats are the villains.

Actually, the reasons for wanting children to be in school are simplicity itself. It is better for individuals and also better for society as a whole. There is a strong association between  things like illiteracy and poor education and a host of undesirable things; ranging from ending up in prisons or psychiatric hospitals, to early sexual activity and prostitution, from drug use to membership of criminals gangs, depression to  unemployment and premature death.  There are many advantages to being literate and well educated and no disadvantages. Educated people tend to live longer and be happier. So  poorly educated individuals are very expensive for society and tend to  cause problems for  others. The fewer illiterate or ill educated people; the better for us all. Almost invariably, this education is acquired largely at school.

Now of course, some people educate their own children. Very few of us do so, though; for most, education is undertaken by schools. Because of all the bad effects connected with lack of education, the government, both central and local, makes huge efforts to ensure that children do not miss out on their education. This means, in effect, making sure that children spend almost ever week, from Monday to Friday, going to school every day. 

That’s pretty much all there is to the case. There is no hidden agenda, no conspiracy, no deeper motive than to try and make sure that as few people as possible are illiterate or lack a decent education. Because most children’s education takes place in school, there is sometimes a fear that children who are not at school are not receiving an education. Sometimes this is true, of course. Sometimes, it is not true and the child not in school is getting a perfectly adequate education. It is certainly society’s business to make every effort to see that children are being educated, because lack of education is not just a personal disaster, but likely to have ill effects on other people as well. 

Having cleared the ground, tomorrow, we shall look at why local authorities have become uneasy in recent years about children who are not being sent to school and whether their fears might be justified.

9 comments:

  1. "Because most children’s education takes place in school, there is sometimes a fear that children who are not at school are not receiving an education."

    I think that this is an oversimplification. The "fear" isn't because of where the majority of children are educated. It has more to do with a mistrust in parents' ability to educate their children. This mistrust is justified in some cases, of course.

    (I notice that you haven't mentioned the "child protection" angle -- is that because you don't want to muddy the waters, but keep the focus simply on education?)

    Elizabeth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '(I notice that you haven't mentioned the "child protection" angle -- is that because you don't want to muddy the waters, but keep the focus simply on education?)'

      That is precisely so, Elizabeth. I wish to focus firstly upon the reservations felt by local authorities about the purely educational aspects of the business. Child abuse is pretty rare and even if the rates are slightly higher for home educating families, the numbers are still pretty small in absolute terms.

      Delete
    2. Worn out Webb says- even if the rates are slightly higher for home educating families, the numbers are still pretty small in absolute terms.

      that is rubbish Webb loads of children who are at school are abused by their parents and the school often fails to see it your peddling uncle Badman view his ideas are over gathering dust on a house of commons shelf

      Delete
  2. LA.s work for us Webb as we pay there wages via council tax income and so far the service from them is rubbish i sack the lot of them

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's nothing sinister about the notion of box-ticking and, like many, I don't believe in silly conspiracies (Simon exaggerates the significance of these). I don't doubt that many social workers/ESWs genuinely care about children, but ultimately their actions are strongly driven by fickle political masters setting meaningless goals, and so they've learned to jump in the best way to protect themselves.

    This is a similar situation to state schools: education is no longer the overarching priority; it's all about execution of procedures and obtaining results that have little relation to useful education.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon says "It has more to do with a mistrust in parents' ability to educate their children. This mistrust is justified in some cases, of course."

    See Mr Williams as an example. He cannot differentiate between their, they're and there yet he wants us to believe he can work through maths a level papers..........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but i did work thought the GCSE paper which Peter passed with an A and do you agre with me that we pay the LA there wages via council tax and income tax or are there funded by magic?

      Delete
    2. "See Mr Williams as an example. He cannot differentiate between their, they're and there yet he wants us to believe he can work through maths a level papers"

      I don't have any brief to defend Mr Williams, but I'd say that while the subtleties of the English language involve a set of illogical and often inconsistent rules that have to be learned by rote (and almost any fool can do that), mathematics and physics require more innate intelligence and insight.

      I suspect Mr Williams didn't benefit from the kind of school that force-feeds kids with rules and facts, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. Good luck to him and his son, who'll pick-up the essential rules when he needs them and probably become a more useful member of society than those who can spout smart rhetoric but can't wire a plug or solve a partial differential equation.

      Delete
    3. cheers for that and your right mathematics and physics require more innate intelligence and insight.
      Yes we both useful members of society paying tax and have never so far had to claim any benefits

      Delete