Regular readers will know that I am something of a connoisseur of hypocrisy among home educators. Not that I believe there to be more hypocrisy among them than the general population, but rather that some of the more prominent among them tend to be very po-faced and sanctimonious and so the hypocrisy is all the more entertaining.
A few days ago on the television news, Robert Goddard of ATL, a teaching union, said this:
`All evidence suggests that whilst some young people that are home educated do get a broad and balanced curriculum, there's a lot of evidence that suggests that quite a few of them don't. We feel that registration and monitoring of that provision will help towards all young people getting those skills and knowledge that they need to excel in life’
Inevitably, some home educators promptly went mad and accused him of a ‘slur’ against home educating parents. What evidence did he have that quite a few home educated children were not getting a broad and balanced curriculum?
Well of course, anybody who took part in the Graham Badman enquiry and the associated fuss will know full well that an awful lot of home educators were and are bitterly opposed to giving their children a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’. They have a visceral dislike of any curriculum; especially one which is broad and balanced. The concept of broad and balanced curriculum was regularly denounced on home educating blogs, forums and lists as a coercive tool, one which right-thinking home educators should reject. Here are Alan Thomas and Harriet Patterson explaining why they don’t think it is necessary for home educated children. See section 5 of the following:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/memo/elehomed/me1602.htm
Last year, the Department for Education website said this about home education:
'parents do not have to follow the National Curriculum. However, parents should deliver a broad and balanced curriculum'
This caused such anger among many home educators that Fiona Nicholson got together with Ian Dowty to try and make them remove it. The very idea, that home educating parents should be delivering a broad and balanced curriculum! It was outrageous!
And so a few years down the line, after having fought vociferously for their right not to provide their children with a broad and balanced curriculum, somebody from one of the teaching unions notices this and remarks upon it. He is at once attacked. How dare he suggest that quite a few home educated children are not receiving a broad and balanced curriculum? Why, it is a thing beloved of home educators, all of whom do their very best to ensure that their children receive such a curriculum.
This is such a monumentally awful piece of barefaced hypocrisy, that it goes straight into the Simon Webb Hall of Hypocrisy Fame. Indeed, I think that it will be a strong contender for the Seth Pecksniff Memorial Prize for Arrant Hypocrisy. Seriously, has anybody ever heard a better example of the doublethink which goes on in the world of British home education?
Showing posts with label ATL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ATL. Show all posts
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Extremist views on home education
It is no particular secret that I regard some autonomous home educators as crazy extremists who have caused a lot of mischief to other, more moderate home educating parents. Indeed, I firmly believe that it was the behaviour of these characters and the advice they were dishing out to other parents which triggered the Badman review and the subsequent legislation. They are not however the only extremists in the field. I want to look today at some other fanatics; in this case, those professionally involved with education.
The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers gave evidence to the Badman review. They said;
"The NASUWT maintains the existence of a right to home educate is anomalous with the clear emphasis in Government policy of ensuring that all children and young people can benefit from educational provision where teaching and learning is led by qualified teachers in well resourced and fit for purpose modern educational settings."
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said;
"ATL believes schools are the best places for a rounded education - including social education" .
Both these statements are, in effect, condemning home education and saying that it is not as good as being in school. I see this as indisputably the views of extremists and not very clear thinking and logical extremists at that! Let us look first at the NASUWT submission to the Badman enquiry.
A few points leap out at one when looking at this peculiar statement. By the way, how can human beings use language in such an appalling way, particularly supposedly educated people? By, "well resourced and fit for purpose modern educational settings." I assume they mean simply "schools", or perhaps "good schools". Why on earth not simply say so? The first logical problem here is that the assumption is implicit that all such "modern educational settings" are actually, "well resourced and fit for purpose". We know, and the government and Ofsted would agree, that this is not always the case. Secondly, the fact that some children are not taught in these settings, does not mean that they cannot be. The government has indeed tried to ensure that all children and young people can benefit from these "modern educational settings" They certainly have not said that all children and young people must benefit from them. The existence of home education is thus not in the least anomalous. Even if we granted that it was, as has been claimed, an anomaly, then what? An anomaly is simply something out of the ordinary, different from what usually happens. Anomalous situations and event are not necessarily bad in themselves. Some individuals devote their lives to others and live in out of the way places in the world trying to improve the lot of their fellow humans. In today's materialistic society that is an anomaly. Should we try and stamp it out? Displays of altruism and compassion can also be viewed as anomalous behaviour. Should these too be leveled out and eradicated? The very idea is preposterous. Whoever made this ridiculous statement was evidently no sort of logician!
The ATL claim is no better. "Schools are the best places for a rounded education". Do we mean all schools? Are all schools and only schools the best place for this activity? What is meant by a "rounded education"? Is this the same as a suitable education and if not, how does it differ? What has "social education" to do with the case? What evidence is there that schools are better than youth clubs or voluntary organisations like the Scouts and Woodcraft Folk for providing social education? We are not told and must simply take the Association of Teachers and Lecturers word for it!
It is clear that whatever the DCSF's view is on home education, and I am not at all sure about this, there are those in the field of education who wish to abolish home education entirely. I do not personally see how the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009 is likely to achieve this end, but I am keenly aware that there are extremist elements in schools and colleges who are bent upon doing away altogether with home education. Let us hope that they will not succeed.
The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers gave evidence to the Badman review. They said;
"The NASUWT maintains the existence of a right to home educate is anomalous with the clear emphasis in Government policy of ensuring that all children and young people can benefit from educational provision where teaching and learning is led by qualified teachers in well resourced and fit for purpose modern educational settings."
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said;
"ATL believes schools are the best places for a rounded education - including social education" .
Both these statements are, in effect, condemning home education and saying that it is not as good as being in school. I see this as indisputably the views of extremists and not very clear thinking and logical extremists at that! Let us look first at the NASUWT submission to the Badman enquiry.
A few points leap out at one when looking at this peculiar statement. By the way, how can human beings use language in such an appalling way, particularly supposedly educated people? By, "well resourced and fit for purpose modern educational settings." I assume they mean simply "schools", or perhaps "good schools". Why on earth not simply say so? The first logical problem here is that the assumption is implicit that all such "modern educational settings" are actually, "well resourced and fit for purpose". We know, and the government and Ofsted would agree, that this is not always the case. Secondly, the fact that some children are not taught in these settings, does not mean that they cannot be. The government has indeed tried to ensure that all children and young people can benefit from these "modern educational settings" They certainly have not said that all children and young people must benefit from them. The existence of home education is thus not in the least anomalous. Even if we granted that it was, as has been claimed, an anomaly, then what? An anomaly is simply something out of the ordinary, different from what usually happens. Anomalous situations and event are not necessarily bad in themselves. Some individuals devote their lives to others and live in out of the way places in the world trying to improve the lot of their fellow humans. In today's materialistic society that is an anomaly. Should we try and stamp it out? Displays of altruism and compassion can also be viewed as anomalous behaviour. Should these too be leveled out and eradicated? The very idea is preposterous. Whoever made this ridiculous statement was evidently no sort of logician!
The ATL claim is no better. "Schools are the best places for a rounded education". Do we mean all schools? Are all schools and only schools the best place for this activity? What is meant by a "rounded education"? Is this the same as a suitable education and if not, how does it differ? What has "social education" to do with the case? What evidence is there that schools are better than youth clubs or voluntary organisations like the Scouts and Woodcraft Folk for providing social education? We are not told and must simply take the Association of Teachers and Lecturers word for it!
It is clear that whatever the DCSF's view is on home education, and I am not at all sure about this, there are those in the field of education who wish to abolish home education entirely. I do not personally see how the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009 is likely to achieve this end, but I am keenly aware that there are extremist elements in schools and colleges who are bent upon doing away altogether with home education. Let us hope that they will not succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
