A few days ago, we began to look at the question of why local authorities chase home educating parents and seem so keen that all children should be at school. We agreed, I think, that there are many advantages to being literate and well educated and no discernible drawbacks. Now it is of course perfectly possible for a child to be educated adequately, other than at school. Never the less, school is the best and cheapest way of educating millions of children to a certain standard.
Before we explore the subject of local authorities wanting almost every child to attend school, I want to look at the one objection which is always raised by home educating parents whenever I touch upon this. Somebody is sure to say, 'Why don't the local authorities fix the school system, before they start worrying about home educated children? These schools are so dreadful that a fifth of the teenagers leaving school are illiterate! If over 20% of children can go through school for eleven years without learning to read and write, surely there is something wrong with the system of mass education?' This figure of one child in five being unable to read and write is of course quite absurd, but is widely believed by home educators. Let's look at the real situation.
I am currently working a dreadful primary school, where around half the children are entitled to free school dinners. It caters for a very deprived area and the children do not have, on the whole, stimulating homes where parents take an active interest in their education. Yet here's a very interesting thing. Every single child in Year 4 can read and write. I know this, because I have tested them myself; getting them to read from a newspaper, watching them write and so on. Remember, this is not some highly sought after school in a good district; quite the opposite. The current methods used to teach reading are astonishingly successful. By the use of synthetic phonics, practically any child can learn to read by the age of seven.
So far, so good. Every eight and nine year old can read and write, yet by the time that they leave school, will a fifth of them have lost these vital skills? Not at all; they will be far better at both reading and writing by the age of sixteen.
At this point, I sense that some readers are either scratching their heads in bewilderment or foaming at the mouth in fury; depending upon temperament. Hasn't government research confirmed this finding that rates of illiteracy are rising? Surely the schools can't be working very well? The explanation is very simple. The definition which I use for literacy is the one which was universal until a few years ago. Literacy was regarded as, 'the ability to read and write a simple note'. In other words, if you could write your friend a message, saying perhaps, 'See you at the pub tonight Jim, at nine' and he could read this; then you were both literate. This is probably the meaning of literacy which most of us still subscribe to. It means being able to read and write in this way. Using that definition, every school leaver in the United Kingdom, with one or two rare exceptions, is literate. The literacy rate in this country is effectively 100%. However, this is not the definition of literacy which is now in use. The new definition depends upon what we call 'document literacy'; which means the ability to decode and make sense of rather more complicated written material than a simple note. Reading a train timetable, for example, is one of the measures. Now I am pretty sure that I am not illiterate, but I certainly get in a muddle when looking at timetables of that sort and so do many people. Reading a map is another instance of 'document literacy'. Again, many well-read and literate people have trouble with map reading.
If I were to test Year 4 next week, by looking at their ability to read maps or fathom out train timetables, then the literacy rate would plummet from 100% to 0% over the course of the weekend!
Although I am not a fan of schools and the way that they do things, there is no doubt that they do what they set out to do very well. Every child receives an education, all are able to read, write and perform the four basic arithmetical operations by the time that they leave primary school. I might not like the methods, but they work. In other words, local authorities know that if a child is in school, then he or she is receiving an education. They do not know this about children who are not in school and this is where the problem begins. Next week, we shall look at some of their concerns and how these might be addressed.
Simon says - 'Every child is able to read, write and perform the 4 basic arithmetical functions by the time they leave primary school'
ReplyDeleteThen very well done to them for all the hard work they put in to achieve that, especially in a deprived area. I live in a technically prosperous area with pockets of poverty, and we have the lowest KS2 figures in the country, so I know that this isn't always the case.
My gripe is that our local children are not receiving a good education and it's been going on so long that it's accepted as the norm that if a school isn't a grammar or Roman Catholic then it'll either be 'unsatisfactory' to OFSTED or in special measures.
I've found myself helping a group of 16 -17 year old lads who've just started at the local college with their basic English structure (grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, paragraphs.) and they're not stupid. Far from it, in fact, but they are totally disenchanted with a system that didn't teach them how to do this and then changed the rules on them. So far, we've got them from a projected 'E' to a 'B' and I have no reason to believe that they can't get A's or A*.
Anne
As usual Anne, you touch upon some interesting points. As regards the grammar and sentence structure of school leavers; this is indeed lamentable in many cases. One thing I can't help noticing in the school at which I am working is that a number of the teachers model atrocious grammar. Examples include, "Fetch me them books, youse two' and 'we was'. They talk in the way that one would once have described as being semi-literate. I didn't say that schools were perfect and I find many of the younger teachers are pretty awful! Efforts are being made to change this.
DeleteJust a flyby comment . . .
ReplyDeleteHere's a quote from the National Literacy Trust on the issue of illiterate adults in the UK:
'Less than one per cent of adults in England would be described as completely illiterate, although this absolute definition is not often used.
'More common is the use of the term "functionally literate"’. Around 16 per cent, or 5.2 million adults in England, can be described as "functionally illiterate". They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old. They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems. Many areas of employment would not be open to them with this level of literacy and they may also struggle to support their children with reading and homework, or perform other everyday tasks.'
From this, Simon, all your eight-and-nine-year-olds in that school may be able to read and write, but the definition of functional illiteracy has to do with reading and writing at the level of an 11-year-old.
I don't think the issue here is reading material such as train timetables or maps. What about documentation such as information and instruction leaflets on medicines or household chemicals, application forms, work contracts, rental agreements and other such important issues?
Can you really say that a person 'has acquired vital skills' if all they are able to decode are simple notes? I think the current definition of literacy is a far better indicator of whether one has the skills they need to function in today's world.
Elizabeth
This is all completely true, Elizabeth. I wanted to use the older definition of literacy, because that is the one that we are able to track over the last two hundred years. The fact that we now define literacy in a different way means that it can sometimes look as though literacy is declining; when of course it is steadily increasing; no matter what criteria you use. I intend to touch upon this point too in a future post.
DeleteI agree entirely, Elizabeth. Unfortunately, people like Simon are part of a problem in which a culture of low aspiration is acceptable, either for political expedience or as a convenience for some other line of argument. No doubt we'll see an example of the latter, shortly, from Simon.
DeleteSimon wrote:
Delete"I wanted to use the older definition of literacy, because that is the one that we are able to track over the last two hundred years. The fact that we now define literacy in a different way means that it can sometimes look as though literacy is declining; when of course it is steadily increasing; no matter what criteria you use."
But that's hardly useful in looking at where we need to be. Whether it's in maintaining economic competitiveness for our nation or deciphering the increasing volume of information hurled at us in order to make decisions, we have to do much better than Simon's crude measure of literacy.
'But that's hardly useful in looking at where we need to be. Whether it's in maintaining economic competitiveness for our nation or deciphering the increasing volume of information hurled at us in order to make decisions, we have to do much better than Simon's crude measure of literacy.'
DeleteIndeed we do have to do better than than just the ability to read and write a simple note! I am using this old definition because it will enable us to see the value of schools and the effect of compulsory education. Remember that I am looking at the reasons why local authorities are so keen to see that children are at school. Since document literacy was not being measured in the nineteenth century, when education became compulsory in this country, we will not be able to use this as a standard to chart the increase in literacy when schooling became all but universal.
' Unfortunately, people like Simon are part of a problem in which a culture of low aspiration is acceptable'
DeleteYou misunderstand me. I am pointing out the bare minimum level which school education achieves with every child, even the least able. We will be looking at the concern that some children who are not at school might not reach even this, admittedly low, level of attainment. I'm sorry that I appear to have given you the impression that I find low aspirations acceptable! I doubt that many people have gained this idea over the years. I am a ferocious critic of schools for this very reason, but here I am pointing out that they do at least manage to teach every child to read, write and perform basic arithmetical operations by the age of eleven. We know that this is not always the case with home educated children, because many say on the lists that at the age of twelve, their children were unable to read and write. Alan Thomas mentions this in his books as well. I am attempting to explore the concerns of local authorities. You talk of 'low aspirations' and yet, as I say, it is not uncommon for home educating parents to have even lower aspirations than these for their children and not to be concerned if they reach the age of eleven, being unable to read or write a simple note. This would be quite unacceptable in a school, but raises no concerns for many home educating parents. This is another reason that I chose this very basic definition of literacy. I shall indeed be discussing a culture of low aspiration in a future post, but this will not centre around schools.
Simon wrote,
Delete"I wanted to use the older definition of literacy, because that is the one that we are able to track over the last two hundred years."
Interestingly, literacy rates were increasing at a steady pace well before education became compulsory. One wonders if the legal compulsion was absolutely necessary since so many were freely choosing to educate their children. Who knows, maybe education would be valued by those who most need it today if things had been allowed to continue without compulsion. It seems that many rebel against compulsion for rebellings sake. The figures below were taken from the census.
Literacy rates
1841, Male - 67.3%, Female - 51.5%
1851, Male - 69.3%, Female - 54.8%
1861, Male - 75.4%, Female - 65.3%
1871, Male - 80.6%, Female - 73.2%
How do you define 'not uncommon', Simon? Out of say 20,000 known educators, how many actual cases do you know of where home educating parents of children without special educational needs cannot 'read or write a simple note' by the age of eleven?
ReplyDeleteYou've just been castigating home educators for taking statistics at face value, but at least we've got some to refer to. As far as I'm aware, and, obviously, I'm always happy to be corrected, there are no statistics. You may feel that's a reason to go and collect some. I feel that if there are known problems in a large, well documented group of children then it's a good idea to sort those out before you go looking for evidence of something that may only affect a very small percentage of a very small percentage of children of 'school' age. (Sorry, couldn't think of a better way of putting that.)
Anne
'How do you define 'not uncommon', Simon? Out of say 20,000 known educators, how many actual cases do you know of where home educating parents of children without special educational needs cannot 'read or write a simple note' by the age of eleven?'
DeleteA very good question! Perhaps we would be better placed to answer this, if we allowed local authorities to check up? Oh no, wait a minute! It is also, of course, not uncommon for home educating parents to be very much opposed to outsiders seeing how well their children are doing. When I say 'not uncommon', I really mean this. I have never heard of a child at primary school, one without severe learning difficulties, who was unable to read and write a simple note at the age of eleven. I have heard of plenty of home educated children in this position, many of whose parents have commented on here and told us about it. This is also mentioned by Alan Thomas, who suggests that home educated children often learn to read later than those at school. In absolute terms, how common is it? We don't know, because any attempt to conduct objective research is regularly thwarted by the home educators themselves. What we can say is that illiteracy of this sort has been eradicated among school children of primary age, but still seems to occur among children of that age who are not at school. Perhaps you see now why I chose that simple definition of literacy and not something more complicated, like document literacy.
The question you answered wasn't the one I asked, Simon. I asked how many cases you personally knew of, because I hadn't come across any. Your answer was 'plenty'. which is defined as a large or sufficient quantity or more than enough. To illustrate what I mean by that being not a very good measure, my son's definition of 'plenty' of brussel sprouts would be one. Yours might well be something else entirely.
DeleteAs you've said before, the overwhelming majority of home educators don't post on lists and aren't even members of them, so what you get on line is the mouthy minority. (Myself very much included and proud to be here!)
But we aren't a good way to judge 20,000 plus people any more than you could condemn a whole educational system because of one or two failing schools.
Anne
Anne
Here is a random example of the sort of thing I mentioned in the comments above. Iris Harrison, a founder of Education otherwise and widely regarded as a pioneer of home education, is talking about her son:
ReplyDelete'This takes me back to when he was 1 2 years old. I was preparing a cat tray using sand and had idly written the word CAT in the centre. G noticed this during the day and asked if the word spelt out cat. He was so excited to have at long last recognised a word that Geoff and I clasped him between us and we all danced excitedly round the room and later went out and bought a bottle of wine to celebrate with our evening meal. (At such times I just want to stand on top of a cloud and shout to the whole world for everyone to share my excitement).'
A twelve year-old who had only just learned to identify a simple word would be utterly unknown in an ordinary school. Even those who have been diagnosed as having severe dyslexia are able to read and write to a basic level by the age of eight or nine. I am currently working with such children. I am not going to list all the well-known home educators whose children were unable to read or write a simple note by the age of eleven, there are quite a few. That I should be accused of being part of a culture of 'low aspirations', when one of the most famous home educators was thrilled when her child could read the word 'cat' at the age of twelve is a little grotesque!
It seems unreasonable, until you know that the child was severely dyslexic, had previously been written off by his school and that this was 30+ years ago when dyslexia knowledge was not as advanced as today. Shame on you.
DeleteThis is the same old Simon argument: blow a dubious problem out of proportion and focus on fixing that at the expense of real, much bigger problems - just fiddling while Rome burns.
ReplyDelete'This is the same old Simon argument: blow a dubious problem out of proportion and focus on fixing that at the expense of real, much bigger problems - just fiddling while Rome burns.'
DeleteI honestly wasn't aware that there was a problem! I posted, pointing out that every child in school attains a certain level of literacy and was promptly denounced for having low aspirations. I was just explaining that low aspirations are not limited to schools, but are to be found also in the world of home education. What are these real, bigger problems of which you talk? It is true that there are many things wrong with society in general, but I am currently looking at why local authorities are so keen to see children attending school.
'blow a dubious problem out of proportion and focus on fixing that at the expense of real, much bigger problems '
DeleteAh, I think I have correctly decoded this now. The thesis is presumably that there is so much wrong with schools, so why is anybody worrying about a handful of home educated children. Since that is the very question that i am addressing in the current series of posts, perhaps it would be best if I continued to do so and hope that everything then becomes clear.
"What are these real, bigger problems of which you talk?"
DeleteOur attainment in maths and sciences - not only literacy - is falling behind our competitors, and students that come out of school - often with top-grade A-levels - are weak in rigorous reasoning and problem solving skills compared to a few decades ago. They have been coached for a predictable testing regime, but then find it difficult to cope with things that require more inductive thought and insight.
The impact of our weakened numerical and technical education - starting from a poor base, compared to, say, Germany - is wide ranging: from harming our competitiveness in advanced technology industries to enfeebling the reasoning capabilities of most young (and by now, not so young) people in making important decisions about their finances and leaving them easy prey for aggressive financial "services".
This is a real and very large problem - a national catastrophe.
AH, if you are saying that there is a good deal wrong with the schools in this country and they need to be greatly improved, then I agree with you wholeheartedly.
DeleteAnd that should be the paramount concern of politicians and LAs, not some negligible minority - a small fraction of home educators who are, themselves. a small fraction of the population - who aren't even known to exist!
DeleteSimon wrote:
ReplyDelete"They do not know this about children who are not in school and this is where the problem begins. we shall look at some of their concerns and how these might be addressed."
Then tells us:
"I honestly wasn't aware that there was a problem!"
He also says:
"we shall look at some of their concerns and how these might be addressed."
and
"hope that everything then becomes clear."
Really; I can't wait for this state of enlightenment to be bestowed upon us.
'They do not know this about children who are not in school and this is where the problem begins. we shall look at some of their concerns and how these might be addressed."
DeleteThen tells us:
"I honestly wasn't aware that there was a problem!"'
Yes, I am writing this to try and look at how local authorities view the situation. It would be wearisome for readers if every time I wrote anything, I qualified it by saying something along the lines of, 'This is where the perceived or supposed problems, if problems there be, begin; at least if we are working from the perspective of the average local authority officer'!
Readers are to imagine these various caveats and qualifications as being present. I am trying to write in a normal, demotic style and that sort of thing would tend to make the text flow very awkwardly. I rather thought that most of my readers would understand conventions of this sort, but I can see that I shall have to be a little more precise in future!
Demotic style be blowed! It looks to me as though Simon spent too much time with the vicar and the sherry this morning.
Delete'What we can say is that illiteracy of this sort has been eradicated among school children of primary age, but still seems to occur among children of that age who are not at school. Perhaps you see now why I chose that simple definition of literacy and not something more complicated, like document literacy.'
ReplyDeleteI see now the point you're trying to make.
What you're saying is that, when you take a snapshot of children of a certain age (11), all those in school have basic literacy, while, anecdotally at least, some home-educated ones do not.
This tells us nothing about where these children are at the end of the period of compulsory education. Is there anything wrong with a child being a very late reader who eventually develops good proficiency, as opposed to being an earlier reader who never gets beyond the most rudimentary phase?
If we're talking about parents who can't be bothered, then their children are probably better off in school, where they'll get at least some level of literacy. However, if we're talking about very engaged parents who happen to have chosen an autonomous method of education, I find it hard to believe that such parents would let their children reach adulthood while still being completely illiterate.
It's not just autonomous educators who sometimes have late reading children, either. I read an account of a family that follows the classical method. One of their children wasn't reading by nine. But within a year, she went from sounding out basic three-letter words to reading fluently from the King James Bible.
However, yes, I can see how local authority 'box tickers' as someone else calls them, would raise the alarm if they were to come across a completely illiterate home educated 10-year-old.
Elizabeth
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Even those who have been diagnosed as having severe dyslexia are able to read and write to a basic level by the age of eight or nine. I am currently working with such children."
Iris Harrison's children we taken out of school after being branded 'educationally sub-normal'. The teachers told her that three of her children were dyslexic (including the child you wrote about) and would never be able to read and write. That's when she decided to home educate. Children with dyslexia may do reasonably well in school today but historically that has not always been the case so this seems a poor example for you to use. Incidentally, I know a 21 year old school student who didn't learn to read until he was 12 - he has not been diagnosed with dyslexia but I suspect he may have it to some degree.
Shouldn't we look as a person's skills by around 16-18 rather than 12 if we are attempting to evaluate the success or failure of an education? Iris Harrison's son was running a business in his 30's, for instance. Two of my children couldn't read at 12 but both have gone on to further and higher education (one is currently studying a professional degree).
worn out Webb says-Why are local authorities pursuing home educators when their own schools are in such a terrible state?
ReplyDeleteHow are their pursuing home educators? there been no change in the law over home education all you do with an box ticking LA officer is refer him/her to your local county councilor