One of the most depressing things about the world of British home education is that year after year, the same nonsense is endlessly recycled; the same fundamental misunderstanding of the law perpetuated, to the confusion of new home educating parents. Take the constant talk about the ’right’ to home educate. There is of course no such thing; the child has a right to an education, while the parents, alas, have only duties. This is one of the commonest myths in home education; that any attempt at monitoring is somehow infringing upon the rights of the adults involved. It is in fact aimed at securing the rights of children.
This basic error of perception has had the most unfortunate consequences for some home educators. Because they get into the habit of thinking about their ‘rights’ and not their duties, they lose sight of what those duties actually entail. Despite what some people tell them, there is far more to their duty than at first meets the eye. Let’s have a look at one or two of the things that home educating parents must do to abide by the law. The first thing that they must do is actively supervise and teach their children. It is not enough from the law’s point of view just to let their children pick up things in their own time and at their own inclination. There is a legal obligation too, to follow a curriculum. This curriculum will have certain minimum standards that must be adhered to. Any parent not taking active steps to ensure that the child acquires literacy and grasps the basics of mathematics would be in breach of the law.
These are just a few of the things that home educating parents must do to keep within the law. Many parents do not bother to find out about such duties, because they are instead preoccupied with their imaginary ‘rights’ in the matter.
Showing posts with label curriculum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label curriculum. Show all posts
Sunday, 28 June 2015
Sunday, 22 November 2009
A short, word-processed document......
I have been looking into the question of what sort of plan of education the local authorities will be expecting, always assuming the Children, Schools and Families Bill becomes law. The information on this, such as it is, is contained in the Impact Assessment published by the DCSF. Unfortunately, this document itself was apparently written by a particularly crafty and dishonest weasel. I say this for several reasons.
Firstly, have a look at this. After some waffle about the use of curricula and how good it would be if home educators could be persuaded to use them, the author of the Impact assessment has this to say;
"We assume that with this new legislation this pupils will progress from obtaining 1 -4 A*-C to 5 + A*-C GCSEs. In this case, the lifetime returns amount to £88,500 for each child. Assuming that 46.8% of these children achieve this level, the total benefits of the proposal is £99.5m for those affected in the first year."
I am always suspicious of such precise percentages, especially when they are to be "assumed". Why assume 46.8%? Why not 47% or even 50%? Why exactly 46.8%? The answer is revealing. Observe if you will that if we assume 46.8% of children now get five good GCSEs then the financial benefits in the first year will be £99.5m. Earlier in the Impact Assessment we are told that the costs in the first year are likely to be;
"Costs in the first year are estimated to be between £20 million and £99 million."
The upper limit of £99m was chosen for the same reason that shops would rather price a television at £99.99 instead of £100. It looks so much less. So in order to show that the whole scheme will be effectively self-financing, the benefits must be just a shade over the initial outlay. What a coincidence. It will cost £99m in the first year, but the financial benefits will be £99.5m! What has actually happened, and I won't weary anybody with the detailed calculations, is that the person writing this has been told to demonstrate how it will all cost nothing at all in the long run. He has added half a million to the initial years costs and then reverse-engineered the figures back from this to calculate how many kids would need to get five good GCSEs to make it all worthwhile. Hence that eerily exact figure. You have got to admire the nerve of somebody who can be so cunning.
To return to the plan of education that parents will be required to submit. The same person who made those clever calculations earlier says;
"we have not yet defined the content or rigour of a "statement of education", but it is likely to be a short, word-processed document. Exemplar curricula which parents could use successfully are freely available from the DCSF and QCA websites".
This is a barefaced and categorical lie. You will not find "curricula" on either the QCA or DCSF sites. Instead, you will find material relating to only one single curriculum. Which curriculum is that? Anybody? Gentleman in the back row? Yes sir, that's right. The National Curriculum. Regular readers of this column will know that I am not a fan of the National Curriculum. It is very big, unwieldy and bloated. It is also massively prescriptive, covering in great detail all that must be covered in every aspect of every subject. This is not the only objection to the idea of parents being directed to the DCSF and QCA sites in search of a curriculum for their children.
Anybody looking there will indeed find a lot of material, but it is in the main designed for teachers instructing a classroom full of children. The various schemes of work and lesson plans would be utterly useless and irrelevant for any home educator. As God he knows, I was the most meticulously structured home educator in the world, but even I would have found no use for such detailed instructions. I do not believe for a moment that any parent would be able to make use of them. Except of course, unless you just wanted a load of impressive stuff to show the local authority officer when she called. In that case, a cut and paste job from those sites would be great.
The reason that I find this all so irritating is that I am a great believer in a curriculum for the home educating parents. Nothing fancy, just the basics and some rough idea of what might be covered at different ages. What will in fact happen from all this is that parents will end up producing some sort of cobbled together nonsense from these two sites and presenting it as their "curriculum". Since their kids will not be taking the SATS, there will be no way to verify any of the alleged outcomes and the whole thing is likely to become an exercise in deception. This is a complete waste of time for all concerned and will not benefit the children in the slightest degree.
Firstly, have a look at this. After some waffle about the use of curricula and how good it would be if home educators could be persuaded to use them, the author of the Impact assessment has this to say;
"We assume that with this new legislation this pupils will progress from obtaining 1 -4 A*-C to 5 + A*-C GCSEs. In this case, the lifetime returns amount to £88,500 for each child. Assuming that 46.8% of these children achieve this level, the total benefits of the proposal is £99.5m for those affected in the first year."
I am always suspicious of such precise percentages, especially when they are to be "assumed". Why assume 46.8%? Why not 47% or even 50%? Why exactly 46.8%? The answer is revealing. Observe if you will that if we assume 46.8% of children now get five good GCSEs then the financial benefits in the first year will be £99.5m. Earlier in the Impact Assessment we are told that the costs in the first year are likely to be;
"Costs in the first year are estimated to be between £20 million and £99 million."
The upper limit of £99m was chosen for the same reason that shops would rather price a television at £99.99 instead of £100. It looks so much less. So in order to show that the whole scheme will be effectively self-financing, the benefits must be just a shade over the initial outlay. What a coincidence. It will cost £99m in the first year, but the financial benefits will be £99.5m! What has actually happened, and I won't weary anybody with the detailed calculations, is that the person writing this has been told to demonstrate how it will all cost nothing at all in the long run. He has added half a million to the initial years costs and then reverse-engineered the figures back from this to calculate how many kids would need to get five good GCSEs to make it all worthwhile. Hence that eerily exact figure. You have got to admire the nerve of somebody who can be so cunning.
To return to the plan of education that parents will be required to submit. The same person who made those clever calculations earlier says;
"we have not yet defined the content or rigour of a "statement of education", but it is likely to be a short, word-processed document. Exemplar curricula which parents could use successfully are freely available from the DCSF and QCA websites".
This is a barefaced and categorical lie. You will not find "curricula" on either the QCA or DCSF sites. Instead, you will find material relating to only one single curriculum. Which curriculum is that? Anybody? Gentleman in the back row? Yes sir, that's right. The National Curriculum. Regular readers of this column will know that I am not a fan of the National Curriculum. It is very big, unwieldy and bloated. It is also massively prescriptive, covering in great detail all that must be covered in every aspect of every subject. This is not the only objection to the idea of parents being directed to the DCSF and QCA sites in search of a curriculum for their children.
Anybody looking there will indeed find a lot of material, but it is in the main designed for teachers instructing a classroom full of children. The various schemes of work and lesson plans would be utterly useless and irrelevant for any home educator. As God he knows, I was the most meticulously structured home educator in the world, but even I would have found no use for such detailed instructions. I do not believe for a moment that any parent would be able to make use of them. Except of course, unless you just wanted a load of impressive stuff to show the local authority officer when she called. In that case, a cut and paste job from those sites would be great.
The reason that I find this all so irritating is that I am a great believer in a curriculum for the home educating parents. Nothing fancy, just the basics and some rough idea of what might be covered at different ages. What will in fact happen from all this is that parents will end up producing some sort of cobbled together nonsense from these two sites and presenting it as their "curriculum". Since their kids will not be taking the SATS, there will be no way to verify any of the alleged outcomes and the whole thing is likely to become an exercise in deception. This is a complete waste of time for all concerned and will not benefit the children in the slightest degree.
Monday, 26 October 2009
What is a curriculum?
So many autonomously educating parents seem to be vehemently opposed to the very idea of a curriculum, that I think it worth considering what we mean by the expression. A curriculum, at its most basic, is no more than a plan of study. It can be as simple as a list of subjects which will be covered over the next year or so. This is in itself hugely controversial, because of course the Badman report recommends that some such plan be compulsory and many parents are determined to have nothing to do with the idea. It has even been suggested that just giving such a plan would render autonomous education impossible. This seems very strange. Let us have a look at a curriculum and see whether or not it really would have this effect.
Here is a very simple curriculum; English, Mathematics, History, Geography, Science, Art, Music. How could such a curriculum work in practice? Let's look at one subject, Art. This could involve painting, drawing, making models from plasticine, visiting art galleries, looking at books about artists, watching television programmes, the list is endless. Just by doing one or two of those things each week, Art has been covered. What about science? Visits to zoos, keeping and observing an ant farm, hunting for fossils, watching tadpoles grow, going to a museum, attending a lecture, reading a Horrible Science book, watching television. One or two of those activities each week and science is covered. And so it goes on.
Most of these things are already being done by most home educating parents. In other words, the lifestyle and educational techniques used with their children will not have to change in the slightest degree in order to comply with the recommendation for a "Plan of Work". I am guessing that many parents are following a curriculum already, even if they do not call it by that name and have nothing written down. Most of us arrange a programme of event for out children which cover areas like art and music. Few parents fail to read to their children or discuss aspects of science with them. A curriculum like the one above does not tie a parent down to any particular activity or force the child to do anything against her inclinations. There is nothing scary about it, still less is it likely to destroy the fun of the child's learning!
A good thing about a curriculum is that it can act as an aide-memoire, reminding us of what we hope to do each week. It would not of course be a disaster if we missed out on science one week, or spent more time on Music than on History. The curriculum just tells us what we hope to be covering one way or another. I honestly cannot see why so many people are afraid of it.
Here is a very simple curriculum; English, Mathematics, History, Geography, Science, Art, Music. How could such a curriculum work in practice? Let's look at one subject, Art. This could involve painting, drawing, making models from plasticine, visiting art galleries, looking at books about artists, watching television programmes, the list is endless. Just by doing one or two of those things each week, Art has been covered. What about science? Visits to zoos, keeping and observing an ant farm, hunting for fossils, watching tadpoles grow, going to a museum, attending a lecture, reading a Horrible Science book, watching television. One or two of those activities each week and science is covered. And so it goes on.
Most of these things are already being done by most home educating parents. In other words, the lifestyle and educational techniques used with their children will not have to change in the slightest degree in order to comply with the recommendation for a "Plan of Work". I am guessing that many parents are following a curriculum already, even if they do not call it by that name and have nothing written down. Most of us arrange a programme of event for out children which cover areas like art and music. Few parents fail to read to their children or discuss aspects of science with them. A curriculum like the one above does not tie a parent down to any particular activity or force the child to do anything against her inclinations. There is nothing scary about it, still less is it likely to destroy the fun of the child's learning!
A good thing about a curriculum is that it can act as an aide-memoire, reminding us of what we hope to do each week. It would not of course be a disaster if we missed out on science one week, or spent more time on Music than on History. The curriculum just tells us what we hope to be covering one way or another. I honestly cannot see why so many people are afraid of it.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
The curriculum
The very idea of having any sort of curriculum or plan of studies is anathema for autonomous educators. It is seen as robbing the whole educational process of all spontaneity and joy. After all, formal qualifications and university are not the be-all and end-all of education are they? All this is true enough as far as it goes. I want to think a little about the advantages of working to a very broad curriculum and looking at the advantages of this quite apart from gaining GCSEs or A levels or passing this or that test.
In order to illustrate the points I am making, I shall restrict what I am saying to science, although most of it is equally applicable to history, geography, music, English or any other subject. To begin with I want to consider three topics that many people discuss passionately and which regularly crop up in the newspapers and on the television; GM foods, Global warming and renewable energy.
Let us begin with GM foods, something about which many people feel very strongly. Here is a simple question. What is a gene? In other words, before we even start to discuss genetically modified foods, it is necessary to be able to give a succinct answer to the question, "What do we mean by a gene?" Shockingly, almost all the people to whom I have spoken about this, despite having extremely strong views on the subject of GM foods and genetic engineering, are completely unable to explain what a gene is! they thus fall at the first fence, as it were. To be brutally frank, they have no right to hold any sort of opinion on anything to do with genetics at all. Asking very basic questions about the Greenhouse Effect similarly demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance about this subject, with many people convinced that the Greenhouse Effect is a bad thing in itself, rather than being a vital mechanism which make the Earth habitable. Renewable energy? Try asking anybody who has an opinion about this, to explain how a nuclear power station works and to outline the advantages and disadvantages of this method of generating electricity.
None of this is meant to be any sort of argument in favour of traditional schooling. Indeed, almost all those of whom I have asked the above questions attended school and emerged at the end of the process deficient in many important areas. It is however a powerful argument in favour of some species of systematic instruction of children and young people. Without a rudimentary knowledge of genetics, electricity generation and the electromagnetic spectrum, nobody will be able to talk intelligently or even understand some of the most important problems facing the world today.
It is of course perfectly possible for a young person to read up on genetics and study science without being directed to do so. In other words, autonomous education is certainly not impossible. Without some sort of structure though, it would be very difficult for a child to know where to begin. The field of human knowledge is so vast, that the possibility of simply stumbling across the relevant facts about genetics and climatology by chance are vanishingly small. What of those also, whose interests lie not in science but in the arts and humanities? They may be so busy reading about Shakespeare and philosophy that they will just not get round to finding out about the re-emission of electromagnetic energy as infra red radiation and the role of CO2 and water vapour in preventing the escape into space of these rays. If they do not study this, they will never know what all the fuss about global warming amounts to.
What I am saying is that in order to take part in political debate in this country, to understand the news, hold a conversation on the subject of the environment or even read many popular books, it is vital to have a certain amount of background information. Without these basic facts, the world simply does not make sense. All that we would be able to do if we lacked this foundation of knowledge, would be to parrot the views of others or to repeat slogans such as "Nuclear Power, No Thanks!" or "Save the Polar Bears!". Without knowing what a gene actually is, the only honest option would be to remain silent while others were agonising over the implications of human cloning or genetic engineering. We would certainly not be able to express any preference for or against the cultivation of GM crops in the UK.
We cannot realistically expect children to devise their own curriculum. How could they know which aspects of science will be crucial to understanding the modern world and which all but irrelevant? At the very least, they will need a rough plan to which they can work. There is no particular reason why they need to cover World Way II when they are this age or that, or to study the Periodic Table only when they reach their fourteenth birthday. But they do need to be told what they need to know by the time they reach sixteen or seventeen. If we fail to do that, we are short changing them and leaving them liable to be left behind in the world. They will certainly not become full citizens, able to take an intelligent interest in the serious issues of the day.
In order to illustrate the points I am making, I shall restrict what I am saying to science, although most of it is equally applicable to history, geography, music, English or any other subject. To begin with I want to consider three topics that many people discuss passionately and which regularly crop up in the newspapers and on the television; GM foods, Global warming and renewable energy.
Let us begin with GM foods, something about which many people feel very strongly. Here is a simple question. What is a gene? In other words, before we even start to discuss genetically modified foods, it is necessary to be able to give a succinct answer to the question, "What do we mean by a gene?" Shockingly, almost all the people to whom I have spoken about this, despite having extremely strong views on the subject of GM foods and genetic engineering, are completely unable to explain what a gene is! they thus fall at the first fence, as it were. To be brutally frank, they have no right to hold any sort of opinion on anything to do with genetics at all. Asking very basic questions about the Greenhouse Effect similarly demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance about this subject, with many people convinced that the Greenhouse Effect is a bad thing in itself, rather than being a vital mechanism which make the Earth habitable. Renewable energy? Try asking anybody who has an opinion about this, to explain how a nuclear power station works and to outline the advantages and disadvantages of this method of generating electricity.
None of this is meant to be any sort of argument in favour of traditional schooling. Indeed, almost all those of whom I have asked the above questions attended school and emerged at the end of the process deficient in many important areas. It is however a powerful argument in favour of some species of systematic instruction of children and young people. Without a rudimentary knowledge of genetics, electricity generation and the electromagnetic spectrum, nobody will be able to talk intelligently or even understand some of the most important problems facing the world today.
It is of course perfectly possible for a young person to read up on genetics and study science without being directed to do so. In other words, autonomous education is certainly not impossible. Without some sort of structure though, it would be very difficult for a child to know where to begin. The field of human knowledge is so vast, that the possibility of simply stumbling across the relevant facts about genetics and climatology by chance are vanishingly small. What of those also, whose interests lie not in science but in the arts and humanities? They may be so busy reading about Shakespeare and philosophy that they will just not get round to finding out about the re-emission of electromagnetic energy as infra red radiation and the role of CO2 and water vapour in preventing the escape into space of these rays. If they do not study this, they will never know what all the fuss about global warming amounts to.
What I am saying is that in order to take part in political debate in this country, to understand the news, hold a conversation on the subject of the environment or even read many popular books, it is vital to have a certain amount of background information. Without these basic facts, the world simply does not make sense. All that we would be able to do if we lacked this foundation of knowledge, would be to parrot the views of others or to repeat slogans such as "Nuclear Power, No Thanks!" or "Save the Polar Bears!". Without knowing what a gene actually is, the only honest option would be to remain silent while others were agonising over the implications of human cloning or genetic engineering. We would certainly not be able to express any preference for or against the cultivation of GM crops in the UK.
We cannot realistically expect children to devise their own curriculum. How could they know which aspects of science will be crucial to understanding the modern world and which all but irrelevant? At the very least, they will need a rough plan to which they can work. There is no particular reason why they need to cover World Way II when they are this age or that, or to study the Periodic Table only when they reach their fourteenth birthday. But they do need to be told what they need to know by the time they reach sixteen or seventeen. If we fail to do that, we are short changing them and leaving them liable to be left behind in the world. They will certainly not become full citizens, able to take an intelligent interest in the serious issues of the day.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Home education - the vital need for a curriculum
It is sometimes suggested that children at school are encouraged to take ten or more GCSEs and that this becomes an end in itself, often filling their heads with a lot of useless information that they will never need after leaving school. Well, GCSEs are of course very useful, particularly if you wish to gain a place at college or university, but there is a far more important reason for undertaking the systematic instruction of children in the rudiments of history, geography, science and so on. This is because without the possession of a body of knowledge, much of the world will be incomprehensible. To some extent, it is irrelevant whether or not the acquisition of this knowledge leads to formal qualifications; it is vitally necessary for its own sake. I wish today to focus upon one subject, history, although most of what I say would be equally applicable to any other part of a well rounded curriculum.
Let us begin by considering just one current news item, the Lisbon treaty and Ireland's referendum on it. In order to make any sense of this, it is at the very least necessary to know that the Irish Republic was once part of this country. It is also necessary to be aware of the fact that France has been the main driving force behind the creation of the European Union. To know what is happening in Europe and why we and the Irish view things a little differently, you really have to know something of the history of Franco-British relations. You need to know about the two World Wars, but also about the Napoleonic Wars, the Hundred Years War and Agincourt and also of course, the Norman Conquest. Without this basic knowledge, nobody could expect fully to understand our ambivalent attitude to France. Similar knowledge is needed to make sense of our relations with Germany.
Most of the historical knowledge mentioned above is of the sort which any educated person will take more or less for granted. Of course, a young person or child might pick up such information in the course of desultory reading and browsing the internet, but this is rather a large gamble to take on such an important matter. Suppose that he does not pick up this knowledge of his own accord? Will he in later life be able to take an intelligent interest in foreign affairs? Will he be fit to hold an opinion on the EU? What actually is the autonomously educating parent's approach to this subject? Is learning about the Hundred Years War and the battle of Waterloo one of those things that must be left to the child's choice? Deborah Durbin, author of "Teach Yourself Home Education", which is incidentally quite the worst book on the subject of home education which I have ever seen in my life, talks about history in her book. She says, "History lessons can be covered by exploring your family tree". It would be hard to imagine a more parochial attitude! How studying my family tree would help anybody to make sense of the Lisbon Treaty is a complete mystery to me. The Good Lord alone knows if this is a standard approach for autonomous educators to such a crucial subject.
Let me give another example. To understand why Russia is manoeuvring and intriguing in the Black Sea, one must be aware of their historic quest for warm water ports. Without knowledge of the Crimean War and the significance of the Dardanelles, news that Russia is exerting pressure on Georgia will be meaningless. Basic geopolitical facts such as these are crucial to anybody's understanding of the modern world. Again, why leave a child to stumble across such important information by sheer chance? What could possibly be the rationale for this perverse course of action? A child could not be expected to guess that in order to understand Russian motives in the modern world, he will need to know about the Crimean War. We as adults know it though and it is up to us to transmit this useful knowledge to our children.
I am aware that many home educating parents have a profound antipathy towards the National Curriculum, an antipathy which I fully share. Indeed, my dissatisfaction with the scope and depth of the National Curriculum was a major factor in my decision to teach my own daughter. Dissatisfaction with one curriculum did not however make me think that there should be no curriculum at all! It simply meant that I should have to devise a better curriculum. Without studying a coherent and well planned curriculum in history, geography, science, English and mathematics, our children will struggle to understand the world around them. It is out duty and responsibility to see that they are equipped with the background knowledge which will enable them to participate as active citizens in the modern, industrial society in which they are growing up.
Let us begin by considering just one current news item, the Lisbon treaty and Ireland's referendum on it. In order to make any sense of this, it is at the very least necessary to know that the Irish Republic was once part of this country. It is also necessary to be aware of the fact that France has been the main driving force behind the creation of the European Union. To know what is happening in Europe and why we and the Irish view things a little differently, you really have to know something of the history of Franco-British relations. You need to know about the two World Wars, but also about the Napoleonic Wars, the Hundred Years War and Agincourt and also of course, the Norman Conquest. Without this basic knowledge, nobody could expect fully to understand our ambivalent attitude to France. Similar knowledge is needed to make sense of our relations with Germany.
Most of the historical knowledge mentioned above is of the sort which any educated person will take more or less for granted. Of course, a young person or child might pick up such information in the course of desultory reading and browsing the internet, but this is rather a large gamble to take on such an important matter. Suppose that he does not pick up this knowledge of his own accord? Will he in later life be able to take an intelligent interest in foreign affairs? Will he be fit to hold an opinion on the EU? What actually is the autonomously educating parent's approach to this subject? Is learning about the Hundred Years War and the battle of Waterloo one of those things that must be left to the child's choice? Deborah Durbin, author of "Teach Yourself Home Education", which is incidentally quite the worst book on the subject of home education which I have ever seen in my life, talks about history in her book. She says, "History lessons can be covered by exploring your family tree". It would be hard to imagine a more parochial attitude! How studying my family tree would help anybody to make sense of the Lisbon Treaty is a complete mystery to me. The Good Lord alone knows if this is a standard approach for autonomous educators to such a crucial subject.
Let me give another example. To understand why Russia is manoeuvring and intriguing in the Black Sea, one must be aware of their historic quest for warm water ports. Without knowledge of the Crimean War and the significance of the Dardanelles, news that Russia is exerting pressure on Georgia will be meaningless. Basic geopolitical facts such as these are crucial to anybody's understanding of the modern world. Again, why leave a child to stumble across such important information by sheer chance? What could possibly be the rationale for this perverse course of action? A child could not be expected to guess that in order to understand Russian motives in the modern world, he will need to know about the Crimean War. We as adults know it though and it is up to us to transmit this useful knowledge to our children.
I am aware that many home educating parents have a profound antipathy towards the National Curriculum, an antipathy which I fully share. Indeed, my dissatisfaction with the scope and depth of the National Curriculum was a major factor in my decision to teach my own daughter. Dissatisfaction with one curriculum did not however make me think that there should be no curriculum at all! It simply meant that I should have to devise a better curriculum. Without studying a coherent and well planned curriculum in history, geography, science, English and mathematics, our children will struggle to understand the world around them. It is out duty and responsibility to see that they are equipped with the background knowledge which will enable them to participate as active citizens in the modern, industrial society in which they are growing up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
