Wednesday, 11 December 2013
Why don‘t people want to be with their children?
Unlike many home educators, I have no ideological objection to schools; nor do I think them bad places in themselves. I have remarked before that they are, to me, a necessary evil; in an ideal world, they would not be needed. The question that I have been considering lately though is why nearly everybody sends their children to school as soon as they can. Of course, it goes without saying that part of the explanation is simply that this is what you do when your child turns five, but there must be a little more to it than that. After all, there is nothing magical about the age of five. Legally, you could delay starting school until the child was six, seven or even older. What actually happens is that almost everybody sends children before that all-important age of five. It is a rare child today who begins school at about his or her fifth birthday; most start when they are three or four, by which time an awful lot of them have already been in nurseries for a couple of years.
When my daughter was two, I enjoyed her company enormously; she was an endless source of pleasure to me. Why on Earth would I have given her to strangers, so that they could have her instead of me? In some families, where both parents are working, it is presumably a matter of convenience, but for most; it seems to be a relief for them to get shot of their kids. During the decades that I was working with families with small children, the request made most often was, ‘Can you help me get a nursery place?’ This was being asked by single mothers, when their babies were six months old. There was a great desire to see the children packed off to day-care, so that the mothers could get on with their lives. Once the children were at school, then there were breakfast clubs, after school clubs, holiday play schemes and a dozen other ways that parents could ensure that they saw as little of their children as possible. In recent years, this has become very common and many parents appear to have the idea that it is for the state to look after their offspring for most of the time and that the parents should only have to have them for an hour or two in the evenings. It is not at all uncommon to hear people bemoaning the approach of the summer holidays and complaining that they do not know how they will cope. Usually, it is clear that this is because the parents just don't like being with their children too much and dread being forced to spend time with them.
I am genuinely foxed by all this. I can truthfully say that I never became bored with my daughter, from the first day of her birth. I still don’t, even though she is now twenty. I cannot imagine why I would be wanting to shove her out of the way for as long as I could manage. It is against this background that we need to consider the political and philosophical objections that some home educators have to the notion of the state as parent. This is sometimes represented as being a sinister plot, whereby the state will take over the care and upbringing of our children for unknown reasons of its own. It is nothing of the kind! It is just that nearly all the parents that one meets wish to see their children safely out of the way in nurseries and schools from as soon as they can walk and talk. The government is not pushing for parents to give them their children; the parents are clamouring for the state to adopt their babies and children and keep them out of their parents' way.
Home educating parents are different, in that they are happy to spend all day, every day with their kids. I wonder sometimes whether this love of their own children and unwillingness to fob them off on others, makes a lot of other parents faintly suspicious of home educators. It's such a weird way to feel about your kids these days, that perhaps this is at the root of some of the fears that we see about the practice of home education.
They are sent away younger and younger to places where girls on minimum wage have to try to manage them adequately. It's appalling. It's only explicable in terms of finances or the belief, fostered by governments, that the 'professionals (the inadequately trained girls on minimum wage) can do a better job of looking after them than they can.
ReplyDeleteIt's equally shocking to me that people who were so convinced of the value of HE when their children were younger are now pushing their children into the FE colleges to 'get their free exams'. Yes, it's tough having to pay for them ourselves, but wow, sending a 14 year old into the college environment seems to me to be a foolish risk.
ReplyDeleteI certainly would never have sent any of mine to college early ( probably the very sort of environment I wanted most to avoid) but is it exams that is the main factor in your area, anon? Most young people I know who have taken up early college have done so to access vocational courses ( eg engineering NVQ, or hair dressing) not academic ones. But then HErs can access free exams in this county ( not via college) so perhaps that is why.
DeleteI too am puzzled as to why people would want to send their fourteen year-olds to a Further Education College. It cost me a fortune to pay for exams, but it was money well worth spending.
DeleteIt may not be a Govt plan to separate parents and children, but it does seem to be a policy that in order to "enable" women to return to work there is more and more need to push nursery provision. So a mother who goes back to work not only contribute to taxes, but the person with whom she leaves her child will also be gainfully employed ( their argument - not mine!)
ReplyDeleteOne example is the pressure on women with children under 5 on income support. They don't have to look for work until their youngest is 5 ( only a few years ago it used to be 16) but they do have to attend work focused interviews every 6 months, which extol the financial benefits of working and come up with plans to do so. Woe betide the mother who doesn't attend the appointment -a benefit cut awaits!
That's a bit harsh, Simon.
ReplyDeleteSome people don't have the luxury of choice, and some kids genuinely do thrive in the busy atmosphere of out of school provision.
Being a parent is quite hard enough without added criticism, and, just maybe, home educators wouldn't be treated with so much scepticism if we didn't suggest that other people don't love their kids as much as we do because they make different choices about education and parenting.
See? Normal service has been resumed in time for Christmas
Anne
The 'luxury' of choice isn't as straightforward as it sounds. We have been significantly impoverished by our choice to home educate our children. We made that conscious choice to forgo the things others take for granted: holidays, cars, our own home etc.
DeleteOf course there are many parents, especially those with disabilities or single parents, whose needs may make HE seem like an impossible choice. However, saying that, I've seen the most stunning sacrifices being made by parents in the best interest of their children.
'We have been significantly impoverished by our choice to home educate our children. We made that conscious choice to forgo the things others take for granted: holidays, cars, our own home etc.'
DeleteIndeed yes. Friends sometimes told us that we were lucky to be able to home educate. The truth was, we had fought so that both of us only worked part-time and that made things very tight financially. We too went without many of the things that some families regard as vital. It was worth it though.
for once old Webb right in this bit he wrote it is just that nearly all the parents that one meets wish to see their children safely out of the way in nurseries and schools from as soon as they can walk and talk.
ReplyDeleteThat is why you do not get many parents home educating on a long term base and that is why you do not need any new laws on home education almost all parents send there children to school
Didn't you send little peter to school until you couldn't have all the time off that you wanted for chess??
Deleteyes i did but what is not know is that i helped at the school so got to see Peter a lot more i also used to help at the nursery Peter went to.helping at the school i got to see the positive side and the negative side of the school the school had low expectations of the pupils which did surprise me positive where that the children seemed to enjoy each other company and many of the teachers where very kind to the kids did there best but where held back by LA and the head.I was also taking Peter to chess in various parts of the UK and got to see private schools and had a chance to speak to some of the teachers such as the maths teacher at wellington who had very high expectations of his pupils and i saw the extra lesson that went on at weekend to at the private schools chess was played at these schools at the weekends this got me thinking more and more about Peter education i could not afford a private education but just knew that Peter needed more and at about that time row started with Hampshire LA who made all sorts of threats i was looking at home education as an option researched it and decided it was the only choice as we could carry on with the chess and study the subjects Peter liked.We joined a local home educating group activo i think it was called and people there give me further ideas on how to help Peter and the group used to have a science teacher come to a members house to teach science Peter loved that. the group also done some acting with an acting teacher to put on a play which won over my mother who was against home education but now says i did the right thing and that peter is a lovely young man thx to us
DeleteIt was not easy at first with all sorts of threats being made to us about the home education from HCC who where upset that i and Peter had rejected one of there schools and i believe the ex head made a sly phone call to the EWS with no notes taken! we had to spend a lot of time on this matter with HCC writing letters back seeing Dr Ludow you try home educating with threats of a SAO and media wanting to talk to you stuff was being said about us in the media which was not always correct that is why we deiced to take part in film about Peter to attempt to give our side of it all but a lot was cut out!
That's the trouble with tv if what they film isnt what they want then they can edit it to show whatever they want.
Deletetheir made 3 films with Peter in it and in my view the 2nd one was the best the director of the film Lucy Leveugle, is now head of Factual entertainment, Channel 4 and is a really nice women who works amazing hours and is now a good friend of ours
Deletehttp://www.guernseychessclub.org.gg/reports/reports.htm
Deletethis was a good report to if you go Guernsey chess club and the reports and press click on it it take you to a page television coverage and then it have peter for you to watch
"The government is not pushing for parents to give them their children; the parents are clamouring for the state to adopt their babies and children and keep them out of their parents' way."
ReplyDeleteYou are so right, and yet so wrong! "Sinister" or not, there is an ideology that informs many policymakers that it's better for the state for as many children to be in daycare/nursery as early as possible.
Julie put it well: it's considered a great good for women to be in work. The state would, therefore, rather facilitate that than support women being able to care for their own children at home.
I'll use the example of Norway again, which I believe is relevant to Britain. Norway currently subsidises daycare/nursery to the tune of several million pounds a year. A report I saw last year estimates that the state covers up to 84% of the cost of each daycare/nursery place. Over 90% of children between one and five in Norway are in daycare/nursery. This, as you can imagine, takes a huge chunk of the budget.
A few years ago, a conservative government introduced the so-called "home care allowance" scheme, where families could claim a cash benefit if their children weren't in daycare. This benefit costs a quarter of what the government is paying to subsidise a nursery place. Yet, the scheme was decried as a policy that would "chain women to the kitchen".
Within only a couple of decades, daycare has gone from being a contingency to being viewed as a beneficial and necessary part of a child's upbringing. These days, it's actually viewed as better for a 2-year-old to be in daycare than to be raised by its mother.
I've spoken to social workers who say that all children should ideally be in daycare, no matter how good their parents are. Apparently, it's "good" for all toddlers to have adult role models outside the family circle, and to mix with their peers for several hours a day.
Not only social workers, but health visitors, too, push parents to put their children into daycare. When our middle child was born, our oldest wasn't two years old yet, and the health visitor began pressuring me to put him in daycare. Her exact words were that I would "need the respite". This was a woman who didn't know me from Adam, but she was convinced that it would be best for me, the newborn, and the toddler, for the toddler to have a daycare place.
A select committee published a report a few years ago that stopped just short of calling for nursery to be mandatory for all children aged three and over. Bear in mind that in Norway, school begins at six. The only thing that stopped them from making the recommendation was Norway's home education law, which would have to be changed in order to make nursery compulsory.
I bring up the examples from Norway because from what I read and hear, the very same ideas are alive and well in the UK. They just haven't yet gained as much currency yet, but they could very well do so, given time.
It's indeed true that many parents don't know what to do with their own children, and are thrilled to be able to pass them on to somebody else. I've met with lots of parents who tell me the could never home educate, because they need time to themselves. What you say on that score is very true, but you are denying the other side of the issue.
I could write a tome on this issue, but I need to take care of my children!
Elizabeth
'there is an ideology that informs many policymakers that it's better for the state for as many children to be in daycare/nursery as early as possible.'
DeleteThis is an interesting point. To me, it looks as though the governments are simply reacting to what people want. After all, we vote them in! Parents genuinely demand childcare and nursery places and often this is not through necessity, but because they would rather not spend time with them.
"To me, it looks as though the governments are simply reacting to what people want."
DeletePartly. But as you explained in an earlier post about how local authorities worry about the wellbeing of children who aren't in school, authorities in Norway also worry about children who aren't in nursery. It's seen as preparation for school, and as an important arena of social development, so they're concerned about the outcomes of children who don't go. Nursery is also seen as an opportunity to compensate for poor parenting, and to help immigrant children integrate into Norwegian society. When you add to that the idea of freeing up women to work and boost the GDP, it's easy to see why a social democracy is in love with the idea of daycare and nursery for the masses.
A small borough last year launched a trial scheme where families of children who weren't in daycare/nursery were getting a cash benefit of over £650 per month. That's a lot of money, but still less than the borough would have spent for each child's nursery place. Mothers grabbed the opportunity to stay home with their children. However, the county council has buckled under political pressure and put a stop to the scheme. They would rather spend the money on a nursery place than allow the mothers to stay home.
Elizabeth
Simon wrote:
Delete"To me, it looks as though the governments are simply reacting to what people want. After all, we vote them in!"
Really? When was the last time that a British government won the votes of a majority of the electorate?
Just read this in The Independent: "Labour moves closer to promise for free childcare for all preschoolers". It's here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-labour-moves-towards-free-childcare-for-all-preschoolers-8998938.html
ReplyDeleteNice timing, backing up the point I was trying to make about how the Scandinavian childcare model is inspiring some policymakers here in Britain.
Elizabeth
Or labour are looking for some votes. Same as all political parties promise the earth when they aren't in power.
DeleteI wonder if it's relevant that so many adults nowadays have very little interaction with children until they have their own. I know I didn't. Like you, I've always adored my daughter's company, yet when she got to about 2 or 3 and everyone around me was saying, "Oh, she's so bright - she's going to love nursery. She'll be so bored at home," I just didn't have the knowledge or experience to know what nonsense they were spouting. I really thought I was doing the right thing in sending her off to nursery, imagining she was getting all this wonderful stimulation that I couldn't give her at home.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if I'd ever worked in a school, or volunteered at a playgroup, or just lived among a big extended family, I'd have had more realistic ideas about what school/nursery actually involved, and about how children learn and thrive, and I wouldn't have made this mistake.
Interesting thought. I have much younger siblings and earned my pocket money by babysitting and being a 'mothers help' in school holidays. That not only made it clear to me that I didn't have what it took to work with children, but put me off having children till much later in life and taught me that they were all so different that the only thing that was guaranteed not to work was a 'one size fits all' approach.
DeleteIt's actually something I love about HE. All the ages tend to muck in together much more than they do in school, so my daughter is getting enough exposure to babies and toddlers to deal with any illusions she might have had about them always being cute and cuddly!
Anne
The current system of funding means that LA's are financially better off if you send your child to school. They get to "top slice" the money given to them by central government.
ReplyDelete