tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post5217121383484884269..comments2024-03-20T00:30:11.702-07:00Comments on Home Education Heretic: Lessons of the 1880 Education ActSimon Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-32486611937801200842013-03-31T13:20:18.722-07:002013-03-31T13:20:18.722-07:00You can easily get ceiling fan as market is full o...You can easily get ceiling fan as market is full of this item but <br />it becomes important to trust only the renowned name. Investing in this type of lighting unit is something that you should do for you can <br />be sitting in your living room, dining room or bedroom and marveling <br />at the lights and beautiful blades that they have plus you get to experience cool breezes <br />at the same time. that your electrical box is specifically rated for fans.<br /><br /><br />Have a look at my blog; <a href="http://Www.Pubart.de/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:VetaAutry" rel="nofollow">Flush mount ceiling fans with lights and remote</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-62884139153926546272009-11-18T05:11:56.719-08:002009-11-18T05:11:56.719-08:00"it also opens a legal and constitutional can..."it also opens a legal and constitutional can of worms."<br /><br />Now you have my attention !! <br /><br />Can you fill me in on the details, because the Italian constitution is very similar to the "otherwise" provision in the UK but the most recent legislation to clarify the details is far more restrictive that anything set out in the UK proposals so far.<br /><br />I'm not sure I am in the mood to go on a one woman crusade right at this moment, but at least if I have ammunition to chunter about it will keep me happy in the interim.TEFL Ninjahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13660756490115614438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-4587491742804038362009-11-17T23:06:03.326-08:002009-11-17T23:06:03.326-08:00I don't know on what grounds you are saying th...I don't know on what grounds you are saying that the people who are opposing the new legislation because they don't like change. *Some* people might be reactionaries, certainly, but in both scenarios, clear reasons for opposition have been given. In the 1880s, the predominant reason was that families were reliant on the income of the child to maintain their standard of living - which in many cases wasn't very high. Currently, objections are on the grounds of the state attempting to share legal responsibility for parenting - not only is this demonstrably unwise (there are plenty of horrible historical examples), it also opens a legal and constitutional can of worms.suzygnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-12988292986076046422009-11-17T22:53:30.828-08:002009-11-17T22:53:30.828-08:00My husband was doing PGCE in Cambridge in the earl...My husband was doing PGCE in Cambridge in the early sixties, (when the course was the most boring and irrelevant ever, but that is another story). When studying the 1944 education act he was told that the original proposal was compulsory school, until someone realised that this would make the Royal Family law breakers - hence the otherwise phrase. <br />Anyway... today is finally here - and I suppose at least it will put speculation to an end to actually know the proposals.Julienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-25266130552719069002009-11-17T22:31:36.572-08:002009-11-17T22:31:36.572-08:00I'm not sure what you mean when you say that c...I'm not sure what you mean when you say that child labour was an issue in 1944. The school leaving age was only raised from 14 to 15. Parents educating their own children were not envisaged by the 1944 Education Act; the "or otherwise" referred to governesses and tutors which is why Joy Baker had so much trouble! I am well aware of the reason for the great opposition to the 1880 Act and you are right in saying that case was quite different from today, which is why I said that the comparison was similar but not precisely the same. What is the same is that in both cases the people opposing the new legislation are reactionaries; those who oppose change simply because it is change. Many people wish to maintain the status quo because that is what they are used to. It is the same now. The law covering home education is hopeless outdated and although the basis is now the 1996 Education Act, it is still based upon the 1944 Act. As I say, this was framed without any thought of home education as we know it, that is to say by parents. It is time for a new law which recognises the new reality, that scores of thousands of children are now taught out of school.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-21084596606083831772009-11-17T22:17:57.664-08:002009-11-17T22:17:57.664-08:00A factor that you have overlooked, Simon,is that m...A factor that you have overlooked, Simon,is that much of the outcry against making education compulsory in 1880 was because many families relied on their children's income from working and school hours precluded work. Many children were in fact educated by relatives or acquaintances and in neighbourhood private schools, but at the times that suited them. There were also significant problems with cruelty in schools. <br /><br />The reason that over time, increasing numbers of parents sent their children to school, was because the gradual reduction of poverty reduced the need for children to work, and because school education became more child-friendly.<br /><br />In 1944, child labour was still an issue (this was pre-welfare state after all) - hence, I suspect, the 'full-time' clause. What was also an issue was that at the time, the UK was under threat from two totalitarian regimes, both of which had used state education as a propaganda tool, and both of which had sought to take over the upbringing of children. The 1944 Act put the responsibility for the content of a child's education firmly in the hands of parents/guardians and teachers - for good reason. <br /><br />I can't see much difference between a parent educating a child and a tutor doing so. As far as I am aware, in the 1940s anybody could decide to become a tutor - it would be up to the parent to decide whether the tutor was up to the task. So the same criteria of quality of education apply.<br /><br />Between the 1890s and the 1990s, responsibility for the content of education has been dispersed throughout the community, negotiated between parents, teachers, school boards/governors, local authorities and government (indirectly). The system has not been problem-free, but the shared responsibility has meant that there has been some protection from the whole system going disastrously wrong. There are many reasons why state control of education is a Really Bad Thing. The behaviour of Prussia is one. State control caused immense problems in the UK in the final decades of the 19th century, immense problems in Europe in the 1930s onwards and it's caused immense problems 100 years later. <br /><br />As you will be aware, some of the proposals to 'tighten up' regulation of HE involve allowing local government officials access to the home and to the child, even in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing. This is not just an erosion of the liberty of home educators, it abrogates an important principle of UK legislation. This is much bigger than people objecting to change.suzygnoreply@blogger.com