Showing posts with label unschooling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unschooling. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 March 2013
The autonomous acquisition of literacy in home educated children
One of the most commonly held beliefs among certain British home educators is that it is unnecessary to teach children to read; that they will somehow just ‘pick it up’ naturally, just like walking and talking. I don’t claim that this is impossible, but I can certainly say that in every such case that I have been able to investigate, there is more to the business than at first meets the eye. I want today to look at a classic example of this sort of thing.
Here is an item from a local newspaper in Cambridgeshire;
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Are-home-educated-children-better-off.htm
Now let us examine what is said here about the way that this child supposedly learned to read. This is, according to the parents, an autonomous education. We are told that:
‘Kit was not forced to read, but instead started to pick it up when he realised it would be useful for him to learn about other things.’
We also read that;
‘he didn't want to start learning to read until he was six, and has rejected the system of phonics which is used in many schools.’
This is fairly typical of the kind of claims made by autonomous home educators about the learning of reading. According to this account, at the age of six this boy started to pick up reading because he realised that it would be useful. He was not forced to learn and had no dealings with phonics; that is to say learning the sounds of individual letters.
Really, if it is this easy, you wonder that anybody bothers teaching children to read at all! Why not just let them pick it up naturally like this, in their own time? All that work in schools on teaching phonics to five and six year-olds and here is a kid who begins to read at the same age as most schoolchildren, without any fuss; he just learns by himself when he is ready. A classic case of the autonomous acquisition of literacy. Except of course, it is all complete nonsense. I happen to know this for a fact. Here is what the child’s mother wrote six years before that newspaper report:
22 December 2003
…has been having a wonderful time of late learning things like numbers and letters. He was transfixed by the Sesame Street DVDs on the subjects, but was restless when I tried to do some alphabet with him today. I wrote letters in his sketchbook and he furiously scribbled them out. We came into the computer room and fired up nickjr.co.uk, which has some lovely games for 2 year olds, in case you never knew. When he knew the very same set of letters in the very same order as Mummy, suddenly it started clicking. Mummy was NOT making this up to be cruel. This is some secret code he needs to learn. As in he thinks he needs to learn it now, not just Mummy thinks he needs to learn it. He's not expert at mouse moving yet, and clicks tend to happen not at all or 30 in a row, but he likes to point to the screen and make choices and have me click on them for him. Today's winners seem to be the letter K and the letter Z. He's always been a big fan of S.
That entry was made when the child was two years and three months of age and as we can see, one of the parents has already begun teaching her son to read. The method that she is using is of course phonics; teaching her son the letters of the alphabet and the sounds that they make. A month later, in January 2004, when the boy was two years and four months, his mother was using flashcards of letters and numbers to teach him. A month after that, her efforts began to pay off, because by February 3rd 2004, the child could recognise every single letter of the alphabet and the associated sounds. Not bad for a boy who is still only two years and five months old.
Now there is nothing at all wrong with any of this; I did exactly the same with my own daughter. It is called teaching a child to read and, just like me, this parent thought that the earlier that you undertake the process, the better. Let us now look at that newspaper report again;
‘he didn't want to start learning to read until he was six…started to pick it up when he realised it would be useful for him to learn about other things’
At best, this is exceedingly misleading; at worst, a complete falsehood. He was being taught to read systematically four years before he was six, by phonics; the same method used in schools. Anybody think that this might have some bearing on his acquisition of literacy?
Tomorrow, we shall be thinking a little about this sort of deception. What motivates home educating parents to teach children to read and then pretend that their children have learned to read without any structured teaching? It is common enough and I know of many such cases. We shall look at why people do this and also consider the ill effects that accounts of such supposedly autonomous learning can have upon gullible parents who are persuaded that if their children are left to their own devices, then they too will somehow just ‘pick up’ the ability to read.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Progressive education
For most of recorded history, the formal education of children entailed an adult teaching a body of knowledge or skills to those a good deal younger than himself. Perhaps the earliest reference we have to schooling of this kind comes from a clay tablet unearthed in Nippur, in Iraq. Dating from around 1700 BC, it says;
The man in charge of Sumerian said: 'Why didn't you speak Sumerian?' He caned me. The teacher said: 'Your handwriting is unsatisfactory.' He caned me. I began to hate learning...
Sounds a lot like my own school days!
There were experiments with other methods of education, especially from the late eighteenth century onwards and including places like Summerhill, but until the 1960s, most schools remained pretty much the same as they had been in Victorian times and before. Rows of children, sitting at desks, facing the front and being handed knowledge by the teacher in charge. No nonsense about the teacher as friend, guide or facilitator; this was the teacher as pedagogue. Those of us who were at school in the 1950s will remember classes of over forty primary school children being taught in this way; all sitting quietly at their desks, copying down what had been written on the blackboard.
The 1960s saw many changes in society. The legalising of homosexuality and abortion, the pill, abolition of censorship, increased freedom of young people and of course enormous changes in the way that schools were run. These changes were part of the revolution which was taking place generally in society at that time. The scrapping of the 11+, the introduction of new and informal methods to primary schools, these are the kind of things I am talking about as regards schools. The changes to primary schools were especially dramatic. Many schools chucked out the desks and arranged the classrooms with small groups sitting around tables. Everything became a lot less formal. Much of what was happening in schools at that time was known by the general term of 'progressive' education.
It is important to realise that the motivations which prompted these changes to the traditional classrooms and teaching methods were philosophical rather than empirical. I mean by this that it was not that objective observers studied what was happening in schools and concluded that the techniques used there were not working. Instead, it was noticed that schools were still being run in a very old fashioned and authoritarian way and this seemed to be increasingly at odds with the changes taking place in the rest of society. The feeling was that it would be nicer if children could stop being regimented and made to sit quietly in rows and if they, like others in sixties society, were allowed more freedom for self expression. Thus did 'progressive' education begin to take over British schools.
From this progressive educational movement grew many of the teaching methods which are common today in schools. Collaborative learning, discovery learning, enquiry-based learning; all these flourished as a result of the ideas which became popular in the 1960s. A lot of the child centred teaching methods used by home educators had their roots too in this period. As I said above, the adoption of all these techniques was not a result of any sort of educational research or evidence that the old, didactic methods had been found wanting. Rather, it was an ethical and philosophical decision because many people felt that it was wrong to boss children about so much and make them sit still while adults taught them. It is important to understand this distinction and not to muddle up the ethical basis for child centred educational methods with any supposed educational benefits. This is not to say that there are no such benefits, but if there are, then these are definitely by way of being a by-product of the whole business.
As I have pointed out recently, questions are now being asked in some quarters about the efficacy of progressive educational methods. Some evidence is emerging which suggests that these methods may not be as effective as straightforward, old-fashioned teaching. Anybody who has watched 'collaborative learning' in action in a classroom setting will readily understand these concerns. It is not uncommon in a primary school to see an entire morning wasted on letting a group of ten year olds find out which substances will float and which will sink in a tank of water. The huge amount of time wasted in some of these episodes puts British children at a great disadvantage educationally compared with the children in some other European countries where more traditional teaching is the norm.
In any debate about unschooling, child centred learning, natural learning, autonomous education, enquiry-based learning and other strands of the progressive education movement, it must always be borne in mind that the motivation behind these things has always been social and ethical, rather than educational. If progressive education were a great improvement in terms of education alone, then we would by now be reaping the fruits of it in a big way. That this does not seem to have happened is causing an increasing number of professionals in the field to start scratching their heads and asking what the educational benefits have been of this revolution.
The man in charge of Sumerian said: 'Why didn't you speak Sumerian?' He caned me. The teacher said: 'Your handwriting is unsatisfactory.' He caned me. I began to hate learning...
Sounds a lot like my own school days!
There were experiments with other methods of education, especially from the late eighteenth century onwards and including places like Summerhill, but until the 1960s, most schools remained pretty much the same as they had been in Victorian times and before. Rows of children, sitting at desks, facing the front and being handed knowledge by the teacher in charge. No nonsense about the teacher as friend, guide or facilitator; this was the teacher as pedagogue. Those of us who were at school in the 1950s will remember classes of over forty primary school children being taught in this way; all sitting quietly at their desks, copying down what had been written on the blackboard.
The 1960s saw many changes in society. The legalising of homosexuality and abortion, the pill, abolition of censorship, increased freedom of young people and of course enormous changes in the way that schools were run. These changes were part of the revolution which was taking place generally in society at that time. The scrapping of the 11+, the introduction of new and informal methods to primary schools, these are the kind of things I am talking about as regards schools. The changes to primary schools were especially dramatic. Many schools chucked out the desks and arranged the classrooms with small groups sitting around tables. Everything became a lot less formal. Much of what was happening in schools at that time was known by the general term of 'progressive' education.
It is important to realise that the motivations which prompted these changes to the traditional classrooms and teaching methods were philosophical rather than empirical. I mean by this that it was not that objective observers studied what was happening in schools and concluded that the techniques used there were not working. Instead, it was noticed that schools were still being run in a very old fashioned and authoritarian way and this seemed to be increasingly at odds with the changes taking place in the rest of society. The feeling was that it would be nicer if children could stop being regimented and made to sit quietly in rows and if they, like others in sixties society, were allowed more freedom for self expression. Thus did 'progressive' education begin to take over British schools.
From this progressive educational movement grew many of the teaching methods which are common today in schools. Collaborative learning, discovery learning, enquiry-based learning; all these flourished as a result of the ideas which became popular in the 1960s. A lot of the child centred teaching methods used by home educators had their roots too in this period. As I said above, the adoption of all these techniques was not a result of any sort of educational research or evidence that the old, didactic methods had been found wanting. Rather, it was an ethical and philosophical decision because many people felt that it was wrong to boss children about so much and make them sit still while adults taught them. It is important to understand this distinction and not to muddle up the ethical basis for child centred educational methods with any supposed educational benefits. This is not to say that there are no such benefits, but if there are, then these are definitely by way of being a by-product of the whole business.
As I have pointed out recently, questions are now being asked in some quarters about the efficacy of progressive educational methods. Some evidence is emerging which suggests that these methods may not be as effective as straightforward, old-fashioned teaching. Anybody who has watched 'collaborative learning' in action in a classroom setting will readily understand these concerns. It is not uncommon in a primary school to see an entire morning wasted on letting a group of ten year olds find out which substances will float and which will sink in a tank of water. The huge amount of time wasted in some of these episodes puts British children at a great disadvantage educationally compared with the children in some other European countries where more traditional teaching is the norm.
In any debate about unschooling, child centred learning, natural learning, autonomous education, enquiry-based learning and other strands of the progressive education movement, it must always be borne in mind that the motivation behind these things has always been social and ethical, rather than educational. If progressive education were a great improvement in terms of education alone, then we would by now be reaping the fruits of it in a big way. That this does not seem to have happened is causing an increasing number of professionals in the field to start scratching their heads and asking what the educational benefits have been of this revolution.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Giving children a shove
Every time I write here about a curriculum or indeed any sort of planned structure for a child's education, I am sure to be told of the innate curiosity which children exhibit. This sense of wonder and longing to find out about the world is portrayed by autonomous educators and unschoolers as a holy thing, a spark which must be carefully fanned into flame rather than being smothered beneath the dead weight of a formal curriculum. This is all fair enough and there is a good deal in it. Children are inherently curious and do have a huge desire to explore the world and discover things about it. What is less certain is if this wish to explore their environment and find out about things would be enough in itself to lead them to discover Shakespeare and Milton, calculus and the lives of the Tudors, photosynthesis and the nature of radioactive decay. I don't want to go into the question of whether it is desirable for children to be offered a 'broad and balanced curriculum'; I am aware that for many unschoolers and autonomous educators, the very idea is little more than a sinister and coercive tool of central government. The very idea of prescribing a body of knowledge is, for some of these parents, anathema. I am just thinking for now about the child's chance of stumbling across these various topics by accident while she is exploring her own interests.
While it is true that children are by nature curious about the world around them, many have another characteristic, one which is seldom even mentioned by autonomously educating parents. This is a desire for the same thing regularly, a wish for the familiar rather than the strange. This can manifest itself in a conservative attitude to food; many children will only eat certain foods, sometimes only if prepared in a particular way. It can also be seen in children who only want to do the same things every day. Perhaps they prefer to learn only from the Internet rather than books or maybe they dislike leaving the house to visit museums and want to stay in their own home and garden. One of the great things about school of course is that children are, often against their will, obliged to join in activities which they feel that they will not enjoy. These can range from playing teams games to reading poetry, from studying the Romans to moulding clay, learning about the planets to discovering other religions. Why should this be a good thing? Because often a child finds that she actually enjoys some of these things, even though she was at first reluctant to become involved in them. By giving the children a gentle shove, they are given the oportunity to get to know about things in which they not only have no interest, but might actively dislike.
The suggestion above that children should be compelled to take part in learning and other activities against their will probably go against the grain for many home educating parents. After all, their whole theory of education is predicated upon children not being pushed to do things that they don't want to do. Sometimes though, we need to look beyond the wishes of a child and consider his ultimate welfare, think about a future which he may not be able to visualise himself. Just as a small child might not be able to foresee the consequences of not brushing his teeth, so too he may be quite unable to realise that his lack of interest in physical activity may harm his body in the future. He might not be able to see that it is necessary to know about geography and percentages in order to make sense of his world in the future. More to the point, he may miss out on some things which he would very much enjoy. Unless an effort is made to insist that he listen to poetry and plays, he may reject these out of hand and characterise himself as somebody who does not like poetry. This can mean that he will end up missing out on a lot in later life.
For many children embracing the familiar and rejecting the strange and new is a way of life. They may well be curious about the world, but they are also a little nervous and prefer to play safe and stick to what they know. Sometimes they need to be encouraged, even forced to join in things and at least get a taste of something which they do not like. Bad habits can grow stronger if left unchecked and while it is quite true that the habit of curiosity and wonder can grow as a child develops, so to is it the case that some children can become less willing to try new things and new ideas as they grow older. It is part of our duties as parents to see that they do, for their own sake.
While it is true that children are by nature curious about the world around them, many have another characteristic, one which is seldom even mentioned by autonomously educating parents. This is a desire for the same thing regularly, a wish for the familiar rather than the strange. This can manifest itself in a conservative attitude to food; many children will only eat certain foods, sometimes only if prepared in a particular way. It can also be seen in children who only want to do the same things every day. Perhaps they prefer to learn only from the Internet rather than books or maybe they dislike leaving the house to visit museums and want to stay in their own home and garden. One of the great things about school of course is that children are, often against their will, obliged to join in activities which they feel that they will not enjoy. These can range from playing teams games to reading poetry, from studying the Romans to moulding clay, learning about the planets to discovering other religions. Why should this be a good thing? Because often a child finds that she actually enjoys some of these things, even though she was at first reluctant to become involved in them. By giving the children a gentle shove, they are given the oportunity to get to know about things in which they not only have no interest, but might actively dislike.
The suggestion above that children should be compelled to take part in learning and other activities against their will probably go against the grain for many home educating parents. After all, their whole theory of education is predicated upon children not being pushed to do things that they don't want to do. Sometimes though, we need to look beyond the wishes of a child and consider his ultimate welfare, think about a future which he may not be able to visualise himself. Just as a small child might not be able to foresee the consequences of not brushing his teeth, so too he may be quite unable to realise that his lack of interest in physical activity may harm his body in the future. He might not be able to see that it is necessary to know about geography and percentages in order to make sense of his world in the future. More to the point, he may miss out on some things which he would very much enjoy. Unless an effort is made to insist that he listen to poetry and plays, he may reject these out of hand and characterise himself as somebody who does not like poetry. This can mean that he will end up missing out on a lot in later life.
For many children embracing the familiar and rejecting the strange and new is a way of life. They may well be curious about the world, but they are also a little nervous and prefer to play safe and stick to what they know. Sometimes they need to be encouraged, even forced to join in things and at least get a taste of something which they do not like. Bad habits can grow stronger if left unchecked and while it is quite true that the habit of curiosity and wonder can grow as a child develops, so to is it the case that some children can become less willing to try new things and new ideas as they grow older. It is part of our duties as parents to see that they do, for their own sake.
Friday, 4 September 2009
Was John Holt the world's most annoying author?
The above question is not meant rhetorically. Like many home educating parents, I bought a copy of "Teach your own" years ago. I didn't think much of it and stuck it in a bookcase for the next decade or so. Recently, I fished it out and had a look through it. I had quite forgotten just how truly, monumentally awful it is!
For those unfamiliar with John Holt's books, his most popular ones consist of long, rambling, personal monologues, in which he reflects on his life as a teacher. He writes in a chatty, informal style, as though he were a favourite uncle giving you some friendly advice and his books are larded with a nuggets of homespun wisdom, usually presented in a toe curlingly twee way. He sprinkles homely anecdotes around and "Teach your own" also features many stories from parents who home educate according to his wise and good principles. I have chosen a couple of pages more or less at random; pages 143 and 144 in the chapter on Learning without Teaching. Let us look at the fathers whom he quotes approvingly and see if what they are saying is worth hearing.
The first man says, "It is not possible for an inquisitive child to delve deeply into dinosaurs without wondering about, and learning, how big they were (measurements), how many roamed a certain area (arithmetic), where they lived (geography), what happened to them (history) etc." This is, despite anything John Holt might believe to the contrary, a pretty fair load of nonsense. It is perfectly possibly to spend months being interested in dinosaurs, learn their Latin names and everything about them without once learning anything at all about geography or arithmetic.
I have known plenty of kids who become obsessed by dinosaurs. I have never met one who learned how many roamed in a certain area, let alone learned any arithmetic as a consequence. The reasons are obvious. Firstly, nobody has the remotest idea how many dinosaurs did roam in a certain area. Secondly, I have been looking in all the books in the local library about this aspect of dinosaurs. Not one has anything to say on the subject. Neither is any child likely to learn geography from studying dinosaurs. For one thing there were no continents at that time, just one large landmass called Pangaea. Fat lot of use that geography would be, unless you were planning to take a holiday in the Carboniferous Era. I couldn't find anything about this in any of the books in the kids' library either.
I don't believe for a moment that any child has ever learned any arithmetic as a result of reading about dinosaurs, or any geography either! On the next page, Holt quotes with apparent approval a father who has a four year old son, "He repeats and repeats things until he has them. We put him to bed at 9pm and often at 11pm we can hear him talking to himself as he goes over things he wants to get straight." Apparently the child counts to a hundred and twenty nine constantly and keeps obsessively muttering to himself about what he has learned that day. Now call me Mr. Old Fashioned, but if my four year old child were laying in the dark for two hours counting to a hundred and twenty nine and repeating everything he had learned that day, I would be seriously concerned. Sounds like an anxious kid who needs to relax.
The book is full of this sort of thing; pointless anecdotes which are supposed to present unschooling as a wonderful way of life. Perhaps the most irritating aspect of the book is the creepy and patronising way that Holt talks about children. Here he is on page 144 talking about visiting, " An eight year old friend and her mother". I can tell you now that grown up men don't really have eight year old girls as their friends. Presumably this is actually the daughter of a friend of his. To pretend that it is the child who is his friend is at best patronising and at worst, slightly sinister. I am on excellent terms with the young daughters of friends, but if I started referring to an eight year old girl as "My friend" it would raise a few eyebrows! He is always talking about "My young friends". Yuk.
Practically every page of this book has something to annoy one. How it ever came to be seen as a seminal work on home education is an absolute mystery.
For those unfamiliar with John Holt's books, his most popular ones consist of long, rambling, personal monologues, in which he reflects on his life as a teacher. He writes in a chatty, informal style, as though he were a favourite uncle giving you some friendly advice and his books are larded with a nuggets of homespun wisdom, usually presented in a toe curlingly twee way. He sprinkles homely anecdotes around and "Teach your own" also features many stories from parents who home educate according to his wise and good principles. I have chosen a couple of pages more or less at random; pages 143 and 144 in the chapter on Learning without Teaching. Let us look at the fathers whom he quotes approvingly and see if what they are saying is worth hearing.
The first man says, "It is not possible for an inquisitive child to delve deeply into dinosaurs without wondering about, and learning, how big they were (measurements), how many roamed a certain area (arithmetic), where they lived (geography), what happened to them (history) etc." This is, despite anything John Holt might believe to the contrary, a pretty fair load of nonsense. It is perfectly possibly to spend months being interested in dinosaurs, learn their Latin names and everything about them without once learning anything at all about geography or arithmetic.
I have known plenty of kids who become obsessed by dinosaurs. I have never met one who learned how many roamed in a certain area, let alone learned any arithmetic as a consequence. The reasons are obvious. Firstly, nobody has the remotest idea how many dinosaurs did roam in a certain area. Secondly, I have been looking in all the books in the local library about this aspect of dinosaurs. Not one has anything to say on the subject. Neither is any child likely to learn geography from studying dinosaurs. For one thing there were no continents at that time, just one large landmass called Pangaea. Fat lot of use that geography would be, unless you were planning to take a holiday in the Carboniferous Era. I couldn't find anything about this in any of the books in the kids' library either.
I don't believe for a moment that any child has ever learned any arithmetic as a result of reading about dinosaurs, or any geography either! On the next page, Holt quotes with apparent approval a father who has a four year old son, "He repeats and repeats things until he has them. We put him to bed at 9pm and often at 11pm we can hear him talking to himself as he goes over things he wants to get straight." Apparently the child counts to a hundred and twenty nine constantly and keeps obsessively muttering to himself about what he has learned that day. Now call me Mr. Old Fashioned, but if my four year old child were laying in the dark for two hours counting to a hundred and twenty nine and repeating everything he had learned that day, I would be seriously concerned. Sounds like an anxious kid who needs to relax.
The book is full of this sort of thing; pointless anecdotes which are supposed to present unschooling as a wonderful way of life. Perhaps the most irritating aspect of the book is the creepy and patronising way that Holt talks about children. Here he is on page 144 talking about visiting, " An eight year old friend and her mother". I can tell you now that grown up men don't really have eight year old girls as their friends. Presumably this is actually the daughter of a friend of his. To pretend that it is the child who is his friend is at best patronising and at worst, slightly sinister. I am on excellent terms with the young daughters of friends, but if I started referring to an eight year old girl as "My friend" it would raise a few eyebrows! He is always talking about "My young friends". Yuk.
Practically every page of this book has something to annoy one. How it ever came to be seen as a seminal work on home education is an absolute mystery.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Can we define autonomous education?
Discovering whether or not autonomous home education is as effective as conventional teaching is by no means a simple business. When we try to compare two different methods of teaching reading in schools, for example "Look and Say" versus synthetic phonics, we can be fairly sure just what is involved in each case. A teacher using synthetic phonics in Sheffield will be doing much the same as somebody in the East End of London. As a result, we can be pretty confident that we are comparing like with like. This is very far from being the case with autonomous education. There are a number of reasons for this.
To begin with, the expressions autonomous learning, unschooling, informal learning, child led education and natural learning are often used interchangably, as though they all meant precisely the same thing. This is not always the case. Even if we take one method, say autonomous education, we can never be quite sure that the person to whom we are talking means exactly the same as we do by the term. Some parents use autonomous education to mean leaving things entirely to the child. Others are quick to point out that this is more like a laissez faire model of education. Some parents jump in as soon as a child shows any interest in a subject and bury their child beneath a pile of books about whatever they have enquired about. Other parents will direct the child to ways of finding out for herself, feeling that the acquisition of research skills is vital. All these parents call what they are doing autonomous education and yet they all mean different things by the term.
Added to this are the enormous differences in the child's environment. Some home educated children's homes are crammed with books, others have a television set blaring out all day long. Some children see their parents reading books all the time, while others never see their parents read anything at all. All of this makes it very hard to say anything confidently about such a vague idea as "autonomous education" or "unschooling".
There is little doubt that some children will thrive in a home where they can direct their own learning. They will pick up reading, find things out and organise their own studying. For others, this sort of lifestyle might prove disastrous from an educational viewpoint. They might not learn very much at all in this way.
We judge the efficacy of an educational technique by examining a large group of children being taught by method A with a large group of children learning by method B. We try and allow for other factors such as class, age, mental ability and so on, reducing the variables as far as we can to just the competing teaching methods. This is very hard to do with a concept like autonomous education, about the precise nature of which even its practitioners cannot agree. Identifying, as Rothermel and Thomas do, a small group of parents who claim to be autonomous educators and whose children are apparently doing well academically, is not enough to demonstrate that this is an effective pedagogy. We have no idea if the next group of "autonomous educators" we look at are doing the same sort of thing at all as the first group. We cannot therefore generalise from such limited and small scale research.
To begin with, the expressions autonomous learning, unschooling, informal learning, child led education and natural learning are often used interchangably, as though they all meant precisely the same thing. This is not always the case. Even if we take one method, say autonomous education, we can never be quite sure that the person to whom we are talking means exactly the same as we do by the term. Some parents use autonomous education to mean leaving things entirely to the child. Others are quick to point out that this is more like a laissez faire model of education. Some parents jump in as soon as a child shows any interest in a subject and bury their child beneath a pile of books about whatever they have enquired about. Other parents will direct the child to ways of finding out for herself, feeling that the acquisition of research skills is vital. All these parents call what they are doing autonomous education and yet they all mean different things by the term.
Added to this are the enormous differences in the child's environment. Some home educated children's homes are crammed with books, others have a television set blaring out all day long. Some children see their parents reading books all the time, while others never see their parents read anything at all. All of this makes it very hard to say anything confidently about such a vague idea as "autonomous education" or "unschooling".
There is little doubt that some children will thrive in a home where they can direct their own learning. They will pick up reading, find things out and organise their own studying. For others, this sort of lifestyle might prove disastrous from an educational viewpoint. They might not learn very much at all in this way.
We judge the efficacy of an educational technique by examining a large group of children being taught by method A with a large group of children learning by method B. We try and allow for other factors such as class, age, mental ability and so on, reducing the variables as far as we can to just the competing teaching methods. This is very hard to do with a concept like autonomous education, about the precise nature of which even its practitioners cannot agree. Identifying, as Rothermel and Thomas do, a small group of parents who claim to be autonomous educators and whose children are apparently doing well academically, is not enough to demonstrate that this is an effective pedagogy. We have no idea if the next group of "autonomous educators" we look at are doing the same sort of thing at all as the first group. We cannot therefore generalise from such limited and small scale research.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
The "Market Inspector" model of home education inspection.
It occurs to me that a good analogy of the inspection of home education is provided by the market inspectors who keep an eye on street markets. There is just such a market near my office in East London and I have had ample opportunity to observe how it works.
Most stallholders view the inspectors as a bit of a nuisance, although they can see why they are needed. They are not popular, but neither are they particularly disliked. Most stallholders co-operate readily enough, although there are a number who are always complaining and refuse to do anything that the inspectors say without a huge amount of fuss and bother. These are the awkward squad, who in my younger days would have been described as "Barrack-room lawyers". Similarly among the inspectors, most just want to get on and do their job without too much trouble. Like most of us, they want an easy life. There are of course one or two really difficult types who set out to make life hard for the stallholders, but these are, mercifully, the exception.
It strikes me that this is very much a model for the world of home education and its inspection by local authorities. Most home educating parents, I think, see the need for inspections. As long as these are not too frequent or intrusive, they tolerate them. There are a number though who have a propensity to stand on their rights. They are shrill and voluable and some of them urge all parents to refuse visits and join them in a campaign of mass resistance to any attempt to check up on what they are doing with their children. Similarly, there are difficult and unpleasant inspectors and educational welfare officers who actively disapprove of home education and see it as their mission to give us a hard time. Like the awkward market inspectors, I think that this is a minority.
Something to bear in mind when one decides to go head to head with the state is that the state has far more resources than we do as individuals. It can afford to spend huge sums on lawyers, indeed it can actually change the law if it feels in the mood; as we are currently seeing with the proposed new legislation. It strikes me that a lot of home educators are spending so much time these days fighting the government, both local and national, that they must have very little time left to spend on their children. This seems sad and a little unnecessary. Which is likely to cause most disruption to their children's education; a brief annual visit or a sustained campaign lasting months on end fighting against such visits?
Most stallholders view the inspectors as a bit of a nuisance, although they can see why they are needed. They are not popular, but neither are they particularly disliked. Most stallholders co-operate readily enough, although there are a number who are always complaining and refuse to do anything that the inspectors say without a huge amount of fuss and bother. These are the awkward squad, who in my younger days would have been described as "Barrack-room lawyers". Similarly among the inspectors, most just want to get on and do their job without too much trouble. Like most of us, they want an easy life. There are of course one or two really difficult types who set out to make life hard for the stallholders, but these are, mercifully, the exception.
It strikes me that this is very much a model for the world of home education and its inspection by local authorities. Most home educating parents, I think, see the need for inspections. As long as these are not too frequent or intrusive, they tolerate them. There are a number though who have a propensity to stand on their rights. They are shrill and voluable and some of them urge all parents to refuse visits and join them in a campaign of mass resistance to any attempt to check up on what they are doing with their children. Similarly, there are difficult and unpleasant inspectors and educational welfare officers who actively disapprove of home education and see it as their mission to give us a hard time. Like the awkward market inspectors, I think that this is a minority.
Something to bear in mind when one decides to go head to head with the state is that the state has far more resources than we do as individuals. It can afford to spend huge sums on lawyers, indeed it can actually change the law if it feels in the mood; as we are currently seeing with the proposed new legislation. It strikes me that a lot of home educators are spending so much time these days fighting the government, both local and national, that they must have very little time left to spend on their children. This seems sad and a little unnecessary. Which is likely to cause most disruption to their children's education; a brief annual visit or a sustained campaign lasting months on end fighting against such visits?
Thursday, 13 August 2009
American versus British home education
Every so often somebody in the world of home education becomes excited because some new piece of research shows that home educated children do better than those at school. The latest study is from America and it does indeed suggest that home educated children there are doing a good deal better than those at American schools. It was conducted by the Home School Legal Defence Association and surveyed over eleven thousand home educated children. What relevance has this to British home education? Well, absolutely none at all really. British and American home education are two completely different things. Let me explain.
The National Centre for Education Statistics in America carried out a huge survey a few years ago, looking at the motivation for home education. Almost 50% of parents gave as their main reason; "Can give child a better education at home". Compare this with Paula Rothermel's paper, The Third Way in Education, published in 2000. The main reasons that parents in Britain gave for home education were; "Having a close family relationship and being together" and also "Having the freedom and flexibility to do what we want, when we want".
See the difference? No mention of education as a reason for home educating. It does not bode well at all. In the NCES survey, another third of American parents gave religion as their main reason for home educating. These people tend to use highly structured and effective programmes such as Accelerated Christian Education with their children. Believe me, these methods get results. No nonsense there about "freedom and flexibility to do what we want"!
It should always be remembered when we flourish some new statistic from the USA about home education, that parents there keep their children away from school so that they can educate them, not so that they can have "a close family relationship and be together". No wonder they get better results educationally.
The National Centre for Education Statistics in America carried out a huge survey a few years ago, looking at the motivation for home education. Almost 50% of parents gave as their main reason; "Can give child a better education at home". Compare this with Paula Rothermel's paper, The Third Way in Education, published in 2000. The main reasons that parents in Britain gave for home education were; "Having a close family relationship and being together" and also "Having the freedom and flexibility to do what we want, when we want".
See the difference? No mention of education as a reason for home educating. It does not bode well at all. In the NCES survey, another third of American parents gave religion as their main reason for home educating. These people tend to use highly structured and effective programmes such as Accelerated Christian Education with their children. Believe me, these methods get results. No nonsense there about "freedom and flexibility to do what we want"!
It should always be remembered when we flourish some new statistic from the USA about home education, that parents there keep their children away from school so that they can educate them, not so that they can have "a close family relationship and be together". No wonder they get better results educationally.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
More autonomous "education"......
I cited below a book published this year written by Deborah Durbin. Teach Yourself Home Education is written by an autonomously educating mother and presumably she knows what she is talking about. Here she explains how her children learn English, which is to say the spelling, grammar and punctuation of their native language. She talks, on page 69, about how her children might choose to write a letter to a friend and, in some mysterious way, while doing so, "they are learning how to punctuate and write a gramatically correct piece of work." It can't be anything to do with their mother, because she goes on to say, "I do not stand over them because I feel that if they want my help they will ask for it, so I am often at my desk writing".
These are truly extraordinary claims and I feel sure that there is Nobel Prize waiting for the person who can give a theoretical mechanism for this teaching technique. How do her children learn that a sentence must begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop? By what strange method does she convey the necessity for a sentence to have unity and contain a verb? We are not told. Simply that Mummy is sitting on the other side of the room and her children are learning, " how to punctuate and write a gramatically correct piece of work". I suppose that I did it the hard way, because I would get my daughter to draft the letter, then I would point out that she had forgotten the date or missed out the salutation and so on. I do not believe that any child could possibly guess that the traditional place for the date is in the upper right hand corner, beneath the address. Ms. Durbin says that she will help if asked, but without knowing anything of the matter, how will the children know what to ask? Suppose they don't care and are content to produce a sloppy, semi-literate and all but illegible piece of writing? Many children do this. How actually will the children learn the conventions of letter writing, let alone spelling and grammar, unless they are taught them? This is a regular conundrum, the answer to which is known only to Ms. Durbin.
I have been quoting Ross Mountney and Deborah Durbin on this, because I wanted to show what modern thinking is on the subject of autonomous education. John Holt is of course little better. Besides which his folksy style and homely anecdotes soon have all right thinking people reaching for the sick bag.
Does it matter whether or not children learn to write letters properly, following the same conventions as everybody else? Well it does if they wish to write to a potential employer, or their bank or some other place where there might be literate and educated people to read the letter. Few things give a worse impression of a job applicant than missing out "Dear Sir" or not signing the letter at the bottom. This is not some hopelessly abstract area of learning like the Hundred Years War or quadratic equations; it is a vital skill for day to day living. Why on Earth would one not teach it to a child?
These are truly extraordinary claims and I feel sure that there is Nobel Prize waiting for the person who can give a theoretical mechanism for this teaching technique. How do her children learn that a sentence must begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop? By what strange method does she convey the necessity for a sentence to have unity and contain a verb? We are not told. Simply that Mummy is sitting on the other side of the room and her children are learning, " how to punctuate and write a gramatically correct piece of work". I suppose that I did it the hard way, because I would get my daughter to draft the letter, then I would point out that she had forgotten the date or missed out the salutation and so on. I do not believe that any child could possibly guess that the traditional place for the date is in the upper right hand corner, beneath the address. Ms. Durbin says that she will help if asked, but without knowing anything of the matter, how will the children know what to ask? Suppose they don't care and are content to produce a sloppy, semi-literate and all but illegible piece of writing? Many children do this. How actually will the children learn the conventions of letter writing, let alone spelling and grammar, unless they are taught them? This is a regular conundrum, the answer to which is known only to Ms. Durbin.
I have been quoting Ross Mountney and Deborah Durbin on this, because I wanted to show what modern thinking is on the subject of autonomous education. John Holt is of course little better. Besides which his folksy style and homely anecdotes soon have all right thinking people reaching for the sick bag.
Does it matter whether or not children learn to write letters properly, following the same conventions as everybody else? Well it does if they wish to write to a potential employer, or their bank or some other place where there might be literate and educated people to read the letter. Few things give a worse impression of a job applicant than missing out "Dear Sir" or not signing the letter at the bottom. This is not some hopelessly abstract area of learning like the Hundred Years War or quadratic equations; it is a vital skill for day to day living. Why on Earth would one not teach it to a child?
Childhood autonomy; what are the limits?
For a number of online home educating communities, autonomous education seems to be far and away the most popular approach. Indeed, for some it seems almost an article of faith. I want to look today at the basis for this belief that our children are the best judges of what they should study and learn.
Looking at Ross Mountney's book "Learning without School" (Jessica Kingsley 2009), I find a definition with which many autonomous home educators would agree. On page 72 she says, "The children do activities which they have chosen, when they have chosen them." Similarly, in a recently published book in the "Teach Yourself" series, (Home Education, Hodder Headline 2009), author Deborah Durbin says of her own children, "They are given the freedom to make choices as to what subjects they would like to study and are under no pressure to study subjects they show no interest in", (Page 64).
The difficulty that I and many others have is with the whole concept of children being the best judges of what is good for them. From birth, we restrict the autonomy of our children. If a baby or toddler wishes to drink something like bleach from a brightly coloured bottle, we prevent them. This is because we, as adults, know better than them what is wholesome and good for them. If they want to play with a wasp, we stop them. This process continues throughout childhood. I am sure that even the most dedicated autonomous parent would not allow her child to live on sugar and coca cola. This is because, once again, we know better. We make them wash, clean their teeth, eat properly, go to bed at a reasonable hour, not wear the same clothes until they turn into stinking rags; in a hundred different ways each day we meddle with their lives and limit their autonomy. However when it comes to mental heath and development, rather than physical, the rules seem to change dramatically. The question is, why?
Since we assume that a child cannot be trusted to understand the effect of ultra violet rays, and their carcinogenic properties, we slap on sunscreen. Incidentally, I have noticed that autonomous educators are among the greatest worriers about this; their children are often dripping with the stuff even on an overcast April morning! However, if the children fail to realise the importance of being able to do mental arithmetic or compose a coherent letter, the rules change; the choice is now theirs. Avoiding skin cancer and being able to work out the change from a ten pound note are both important, but we allow the child to make the choice in one, but not the other case.
Why should we assume in other words, that children know, better than we do, what sort of knowledge and skills they are likely to need in later life? To take a basic example, it is very useful indeed to be able to work out areas when one is painting a room. It enables us to calculate how much paint we will need and also how much it will cost. How can a child of ten be expected to realise that learning to multiply length by breadth in order to find an area will be a vital skill which he is bound to need as an adult? The answer is, of course, that he cannot be expected to know this. Yet if we follow the advice of authors like Mountney and Durbin, quoted above, we would leave it entirely up to the child whether or not he even did any arithmetic at all!
So, my question is this. Some children, left to their own devices, might sit up until midnight or later, watching television and eating sweets. They would then go to bed without cleaning their teeth. This is an example of autonomy in practice, but not one which most parents would allow. Other children might live normal lives but have a marked aversion to a useful subject such as mathematics. According to many writers on the topic, this should be allowed and no pressure exerted on the child to acquire the rudiments of arthimetic. It should be left to him to investigate when he feels like it. If he never shows any interest, then so be it. Do most autonomously educating parents agree with people like Mountney and Durbin on this or do these authors hold extreme and unrepresentative views?
Looking at Ross Mountney's book "Learning without School" (Jessica Kingsley 2009), I find a definition with which many autonomous home educators would agree. On page 72 she says, "The children do activities which they have chosen, when they have chosen them." Similarly, in a recently published book in the "Teach Yourself" series, (Home Education, Hodder Headline 2009), author Deborah Durbin says of her own children, "They are given the freedom to make choices as to what subjects they would like to study and are under no pressure to study subjects they show no interest in", (Page 64).
The difficulty that I and many others have is with the whole concept of children being the best judges of what is good for them. From birth, we restrict the autonomy of our children. If a baby or toddler wishes to drink something like bleach from a brightly coloured bottle, we prevent them. This is because we, as adults, know better than them what is wholesome and good for them. If they want to play with a wasp, we stop them. This process continues throughout childhood. I am sure that even the most dedicated autonomous parent would not allow her child to live on sugar and coca cola. This is because, once again, we know better. We make them wash, clean their teeth, eat properly, go to bed at a reasonable hour, not wear the same clothes until they turn into stinking rags; in a hundred different ways each day we meddle with their lives and limit their autonomy. However when it comes to mental heath and development, rather than physical, the rules seem to change dramatically. The question is, why?
Since we assume that a child cannot be trusted to understand the effect of ultra violet rays, and their carcinogenic properties, we slap on sunscreen. Incidentally, I have noticed that autonomous educators are among the greatest worriers about this; their children are often dripping with the stuff even on an overcast April morning! However, if the children fail to realise the importance of being able to do mental arithmetic or compose a coherent letter, the rules change; the choice is now theirs. Avoiding skin cancer and being able to work out the change from a ten pound note are both important, but we allow the child to make the choice in one, but not the other case.
Why should we assume in other words, that children know, better than we do, what sort of knowledge and skills they are likely to need in later life? To take a basic example, it is very useful indeed to be able to work out areas when one is painting a room. It enables us to calculate how much paint we will need and also how much it will cost. How can a child of ten be expected to realise that learning to multiply length by breadth in order to find an area will be a vital skill which he is bound to need as an adult? The answer is, of course, that he cannot be expected to know this. Yet if we follow the advice of authors like Mountney and Durbin, quoted above, we would leave it entirely up to the child whether or not he even did any arithmetic at all!
So, my question is this. Some children, left to their own devices, might sit up until midnight or later, watching television and eating sweets. They would then go to bed without cleaning their teeth. This is an example of autonomy in practice, but not one which most parents would allow. Other children might live normal lives but have a marked aversion to a useful subject such as mathematics. According to many writers on the topic, this should be allowed and no pressure exerted on the child to acquire the rudiments of arthimetic. It should be left to him to investigate when he feels like it. If he never shows any interest, then so be it. Do most autonomously educating parents agree with people like Mountney and Durbin on this or do these authors hold extreme and unrepresentative views?
Saturday, 8 August 2009
Why do parents choose to home educate?
As far as I can make out, and I am very ready to be corrected on this, home educators can be divided broadly into two groups. Firstly, we have those who choose not to send their children to school at primary age and then send them to secondary school or college in order to take examinations. The second group consists of parents who are happy to send their children to school and then withdraw them later, often at secondary age for a variety of reasons. York Consulting did a survey of nine LAs and found that roughly twice as many children of secondary age were home educated, compared to primary age children. It seems to be all but unheard of for parents never to send their children to school at all at any age between five and sixteen. (Actually, I only know of two offhand; me and Fiona Nicholson of Education Otherwise. But I dare say there are others).
The fact that the majority of home educated children are withdrawn from secondary school is interesting. It seems that most home educating parents have nothing against school in principle. In other words, roughly two thirds of home educating parents are quite happy to send their children there until something goes wrong. We can perhaps term such parents reactive home educators. They do not really choose home education, it just seems the best solution to a problem. The other category, those who do not send their kids in the first place, could perhaps be called proactive home educators. They have made a definite decision to follow this course of action.
Parents deregister their children for many reasons, but bullying or some form of special educational need stand out as very common reasons. It is hard not to conclude that if someone could wave a magic wand and make the schools better, then the number of home educators would dwindle dramatically. Of course, this is all based upon the number of home educating parents known to LAs. There may quite possibly be a huge number entirely unknown to them. What is also intriguing is that if we look at individual school years, a definite pattern emerges. Hardly any children are home educated in Reception or Year One, but when the teenage years are reached, the number soar up. Why should this be? Is it simply coincidental that parents who have apparently been quite content for their children to go through the school system for nine or ten years, suddenly become enthusiastic home educators when their children are fourteen? Or is it that the children themselves start behaving like very awkward or troubled young people and the parents are persuaded that problems at school are the root cause? What is it at that sort of age that suddenly makes home education such a very attractive prospect for parents who have seemingly never thought of it before?
I do not put forward any sort of hypothesis here, it is just something which I have noticed and find puzzling. I would be grateful for any explanation.
The fact that the majority of home educated children are withdrawn from secondary school is interesting. It seems that most home educating parents have nothing against school in principle. In other words, roughly two thirds of home educating parents are quite happy to send their children there until something goes wrong. We can perhaps term such parents reactive home educators. They do not really choose home education, it just seems the best solution to a problem. The other category, those who do not send their kids in the first place, could perhaps be called proactive home educators. They have made a definite decision to follow this course of action.
Parents deregister their children for many reasons, but bullying or some form of special educational need stand out as very common reasons. It is hard not to conclude that if someone could wave a magic wand and make the schools better, then the number of home educators would dwindle dramatically. Of course, this is all based upon the number of home educating parents known to LAs. There may quite possibly be a huge number entirely unknown to them. What is also intriguing is that if we look at individual school years, a definite pattern emerges. Hardly any children are home educated in Reception or Year One, but when the teenage years are reached, the number soar up. Why should this be? Is it simply coincidental that parents who have apparently been quite content for their children to go through the school system for nine or ten years, suddenly become enthusiastic home educators when their children are fourteen? Or is it that the children themselves start behaving like very awkward or troubled young people and the parents are persuaded that problems at school are the root cause? What is it at that sort of age that suddenly makes home education such a very attractive prospect for parents who have seemingly never thought of it before?
I do not put forward any sort of hypothesis here, it is just something which I have noticed and find puzzling. I would be grateful for any explanation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
