Somebody commented here yesterday, drawing attention to the possibility that some Christian groups raise girls with different expectations for their future than boys. This is probably a bad thing, although I have mixed feelings about it.
I will say at once that I believe firmly in the traditional family; that is to say a man and a woman making a vow of monogamy and raising their children together. As a matter of common observation, women tend to do most of the childcare themselves. Whether this should be the case is debateable; the truth is that even in the most right-on and progressive family, it is practically unheard of for the man to do the lion's share of the child rearing.
I believe that raising children is the most important thing that any adult can undertake. Everything else which I have done in my life is utterly insignificant when compared with bringing up my children. If we acknowledge that it is women who will be doing this task, then it makes sense to give them a little extra instruction about this, over and above what we teach to boys. I am not, by the way, advocating that boys should be taught or allowed to think that looking after babies is only for females. I am suggesting that realistically, it is girls who will end up doing the bulk of this. I suppose that from this point of view, it would make sense to angle a curriculum towards encouraging girls to learning more about childcare than boys. This is pretty much what some of the Christian curricula on offer for home educators aim to do. From that point of view, I suppose one can see the point.
I hasten to add, that I did no such thing myself. Although I did the majority of the childcare of my youngest daughter myself and despite the fact that she came to work with me and spent a few days every week from when she was three weeks old seeing me care for under-fives, she has never shown any sort of little girl type inclination to cuddle babies. This could, I suppose, be a consequence of having a man rather than a woman take care of her a lot when she was small. Maybe mothers pass on something to their daughters about caring for babies; I don't know. I sometimes wonder how good a scheme it is in real life for fathers to take care of their babies, instead of the mothers. I think it at least possible that this might lead to a disordered view of gender. Not that there is any sign of this in my daughter, but I can see that men are going to shape girls in very different ways from women.
I am not promoting any particular opinion here, just thinking about the programme about Gypsies last night and also the idea of a curriculum geared towards girls growing up as mothers and home keepers. I think that ideally, a rigorous academic course of instruction should be followed for both boys and girls, with additional separate elements for both. I can certainly think of one or two things that it would be wholesome to teach boys, as well as the normal subjects! I have to say that when I worked in Hackney during the eighties, running playgroups and so on, we tried to treat boys and girls exactly the same and it was a flop. Nurseries and primary schools were doing the same and it was all pretty much a failure there as well. I think that boys and girls are different and it might not be a bad thing to reflect these differences in the education which they are offered.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
The Gypsy/Roma/Traveller community and education
I wrote a while ago that in some local authority areas, the majority of known parents whose children are not in school are from the Gypsy/Roma/Traveller community. Those who have been following the series on Channel 4 at 8 o'clock on Tuesdays will have been horrified to see examples of the attitude towards girls. The programme is called Big Fat Gypsy Weddings. There have been several casual asides which left me absolutely breathless. For example, the presenter mentioned in passing that Gypsy girls usually leave school at eleven. We are not talking here about travelling communities who are moving about in caravans, but families living in houses in West London. Tonight's programme details the view in this community that literacy and education are not really important for girls. It shows a thirteen year old girl who is leaving school in order to do housework.
That in this day and age it is possible to take children from school in this way and make no provision for their education is shocking. I say nothing of the sight last week of a six year-old girl getting a spray tan and then dressing in a mini skirt and boob tube. I can already hear the cries of 'cultural sensitivity'. Working as I do in Hackney, I am familiar with this excuse for turning a blind eye to cruelty and neglect. I have observed that 'cultural sensitivity' always seems to entail ignoring the mistreatment of females. Eleven year old girls being denied an education in the Gypsy community, female genital mutilation among those of African heritage, forced marriage of Pakistani girls, wife-beating by Muslims.
I recommend all readers to watch the programme tonight and judge for themselves whether the thirteen year-old girl featured is happy to have her schooling stopped and whether or not she is likely to receive an education at home. That a blind eye is being turned towards this is scandalous and I have already made a few complaints to the relevant local authorities, asking what on earth is wrong with them that they are tolerating this sort of thing. Home education is one thing; taking a child from school to keep house is something else entirely. I now await the agonised hand-wringing and protestations of the middle class, white liberals who object to anybody asking any questions about any child taken from school.
That in this day and age it is possible to take children from school in this way and make no provision for their education is shocking. I say nothing of the sight last week of a six year-old girl getting a spray tan and then dressing in a mini skirt and boob tube. I can already hear the cries of 'cultural sensitivity'. Working as I do in Hackney, I am familiar with this excuse for turning a blind eye to cruelty and neglect. I have observed that 'cultural sensitivity' always seems to entail ignoring the mistreatment of females. Eleven year old girls being denied an education in the Gypsy community, female genital mutilation among those of African heritage, forced marriage of Pakistani girls, wife-beating by Muslims.
I recommend all readers to watch the programme tonight and judge for themselves whether the thirteen year-old girl featured is happy to have her schooling stopped and whether or not she is likely to receive an education at home. That a blind eye is being turned towards this is scandalous and I have already made a few complaints to the relevant local authorities, asking what on earth is wrong with them that they are tolerating this sort of thing. Home education is one thing; taking a child from school to keep house is something else entirely. I now await the agonised hand-wringing and protestations of the middle class, white liberals who object to anybody asking any questions about any child taken from school.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Actions and consequences
I wrote yesterday that parents who try and get their kids into college when the children don't have the required qualifications are likely to have a negative effect upon the reputation of home education in general. Judging from the comments, there was scepticism about this. Perhaps I should explain what I meant.
When a child who has been to school applies to an FE college, there are certain criteria to be satisfied before he will get onto the course of his choice. In the case of A levels, this usually means five GCSEs at A*-C and in the case of subjects like mathematics, a higher grade for that subject; typically at least a B at GCSE. Any home educated child applying with these qualifications will be treated precisely the same way as a child who has been to school; there is no prejudice against home educated children. This is not what usually happens though. In all too many cases, the child might have, instead of five GCSEs, a handful of feeble and inferior qualifications of the adult literacy and numeracy type. No matter what is claimed, these are not at all the equivalent of GCSEs in maths and English and everybody at a college will know that. The child might also have ten or twenty points of an Open University course. This too is very hard to translate into GCSE terms. If the OU course is in Ancient History, it tells the college little about the child's mathematical ability.
The result of this is that home educated children and their parents are difficult to deal with from the word go, at least in many cases. They argue, they have a sense of grievance, they suspect others of not recognising how bright their son is; in short, they are a nuisance. This makes colleges and sixth form centres a bit wary when they come into contact with home educating families. They are expecting difficulties and awkward behaviour from the start. They also tend to be a bit suspicious of children who have been at secondary school and then stopped going. This is often an indication of a troubled and troublesome youth. This is, by the way, why many home educators have problems in finding schools where their children can sit GCSEs as private candidates. Home educating parents tend to be very hard work. They are argumentative, they require special conditions for their child during examinations, they have grudges and chips on their shoulders. Many schools find it easier just to avoid dealing with them.
This sort of thing has a bad effect upon home educators generally. Many parents have trouble finding somewhere for their child to sit GCSEs and this is because of the reputation which home educating parents have as being a pain in the arse. This reputation has been created by the behaviour in the past of home educators with whom schools have dealt. The same thing goes for college admissions. For many staff at FE colleges, the news that a home educating parent is trying to get her kid into the college causes a sinking of the heart. Often, the parent wants the kid to start at fourteen, which is irregular and entails extra fuss and paperwork. If the child is sixteen, then the chances are that he will not have the same qualifications to join the course as everybody else. This too requires extra work and often arguments with the parent. These attitudes have been created by past experiences of home educators.
As I said at the beginning, if a home educated child applies to college at the same age as everybody else and with the same qualifications, then there will be no prejudice against him at all. Causing problems and creating fuss at colleges has the long term effect of queering the pitch for all home educating families. It gives people a very negative view of home education. If home educators wish to correct this view, then the best thing that they can do is to stop expecting special treatment and just make the applications to colleges in the same way and at the same time as everybody else. If this were to become the norm, then home education would soon be accepted as a perfectly ordinary choice in education. As long as applications from home educating families mean fuss, bother and unpleasantness, we can expect colleges to have a jaundiced view of home education and those who undertake it. The remedy lies in the hands of home educators. All they need to do is follow the same rules as everybody else.
When a child who has been to school applies to an FE college, there are certain criteria to be satisfied before he will get onto the course of his choice. In the case of A levels, this usually means five GCSEs at A*-C and in the case of subjects like mathematics, a higher grade for that subject; typically at least a B at GCSE. Any home educated child applying with these qualifications will be treated precisely the same way as a child who has been to school; there is no prejudice against home educated children. This is not what usually happens though. In all too many cases, the child might have, instead of five GCSEs, a handful of feeble and inferior qualifications of the adult literacy and numeracy type. No matter what is claimed, these are not at all the equivalent of GCSEs in maths and English and everybody at a college will know that. The child might also have ten or twenty points of an Open University course. This too is very hard to translate into GCSE terms. If the OU course is in Ancient History, it tells the college little about the child's mathematical ability.
The result of this is that home educated children and their parents are difficult to deal with from the word go, at least in many cases. They argue, they have a sense of grievance, they suspect others of not recognising how bright their son is; in short, they are a nuisance. This makes colleges and sixth form centres a bit wary when they come into contact with home educating families. They are expecting difficulties and awkward behaviour from the start. They also tend to be a bit suspicious of children who have been at secondary school and then stopped going. This is often an indication of a troubled and troublesome youth. This is, by the way, why many home educators have problems in finding schools where their children can sit GCSEs as private candidates. Home educating parents tend to be very hard work. They are argumentative, they require special conditions for their child during examinations, they have grudges and chips on their shoulders. Many schools find it easier just to avoid dealing with them.
This sort of thing has a bad effect upon home educators generally. Many parents have trouble finding somewhere for their child to sit GCSEs and this is because of the reputation which home educating parents have as being a pain in the arse. This reputation has been created by the behaviour in the past of home educators with whom schools have dealt. The same thing goes for college admissions. For many staff at FE colleges, the news that a home educating parent is trying to get her kid into the college causes a sinking of the heart. Often, the parent wants the kid to start at fourteen, which is irregular and entails extra fuss and paperwork. If the child is sixteen, then the chances are that he will not have the same qualifications to join the course as everybody else. This too requires extra work and often arguments with the parent. These attitudes have been created by past experiences of home educators.
As I said at the beginning, if a home educated child applies to college at the same age as everybody else and with the same qualifications, then there will be no prejudice against him at all. Causing problems and creating fuss at colleges has the long term effect of queering the pitch for all home educating families. It gives people a very negative view of home education. If home educators wish to correct this view, then the best thing that they can do is to stop expecting special treatment and just make the applications to colleges in the same way and at the same time as everybody else. If this were to become the norm, then home education would soon be accepted as a perfectly ordinary choice in education. As long as applications from home educating families mean fuss, bother and unpleasantness, we can expect colleges to have a jaundiced view of home education and those who undertake it. The remedy lies in the hands of home educators. All they need to do is follow the same rules as everybody else.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Time for home educators to stop expecting special treatment
I have remarked before that some home educating parents seem to feel that if all the normal rules are not bent in their favour, then this amounts to wicked discrimination against them! The latest example of this unfortunate mindset, encouraged I am afraid to say by some of the lists and forums, is to be found on the HE-UK list. A mother there, whose son will be sixteen in a few months, is upset because a local college will not admit her son. This is because he has no GCSEs.
The first thing which occurs to one here is to ask why the mother did not find this out years ago and make provision accordingly. Instead, she has a grudge about the business because the college won't take her word for it that her child is bright and self-motivated. Why on earth should they? Parents are the worst possible people to give references for their own children! I am sure that we all know slow witted children whose parents think they are little geniuses. Most of us also know children who are rough bullies, although their parents believe them to be boisterous and forthright. I am the last person in the world to whom anybody should apply if they wish for an objective description of my daughter. This is very right and proper; of course parents should think well of their children and believe them better than they actually are. This is part of human nature. It is also why colleges prefer to have references from teachers and see a bunch of GCSEs, rather than depend upon what Mum says.
A home educating parent of my acquaintance, not on any of the lists, was really pissed off recently when her son was refused a place at Edinburgh University. He has a glittering array of IGCSEs and AS levels, but wished to study history. Anybody doing a Humanity at Edinburgh is required to have a GCSE in a language. There are no exceptions to this rule. Being psychologically healthy, the mother concerned was pissed off not at Edinburgh University, but at herself for not thinking of this years ago and making sure that her son took an IGCSE in a language. She does not expect Edinburgh University to change their admissions criteria for her son.
Those giving advice on the home education lists and forums could do worse than adopt a similar attitude. It does the reputation of home education no good at all if parents are constantly trying to have the rules changed because they have been unable or unwilling to get their kids through the same examinations as everybody else. Instead of complaining about the admissions criteria, whether for an FE College or Russell Group university, parents might do worse than find out all about them years in advance and then make sure that their children are on a level playing field with everybody else. Home educating parents are often seen by education professionals as being a bit of a nuisance and every time somebody plays silly beggars like this, attempting to get her son onto a course for which he is not qualified, it simply reinforces that prejudice. It would be a better advertisement for home education if teenagers were to be turning up at FE colleges with more and better qualifications than the children from the maintained schools. If that happened for a few years, then perhaps it would help home education shake off this image of being something which is usually undertaken by cranks, misfits and troublemakers. This generally is what teachers and lecturers expect when they ecounter a home educating family and it would be nice to see more families which did not conform to this stereotype. This would, in the long run, benefit all home educators.
The first thing which occurs to one here is to ask why the mother did not find this out years ago and make provision accordingly. Instead, she has a grudge about the business because the college won't take her word for it that her child is bright and self-motivated. Why on earth should they? Parents are the worst possible people to give references for their own children! I am sure that we all know slow witted children whose parents think they are little geniuses. Most of us also know children who are rough bullies, although their parents believe them to be boisterous and forthright. I am the last person in the world to whom anybody should apply if they wish for an objective description of my daughter. This is very right and proper; of course parents should think well of their children and believe them better than they actually are. This is part of human nature. It is also why colleges prefer to have references from teachers and see a bunch of GCSEs, rather than depend upon what Mum says.
A home educating parent of my acquaintance, not on any of the lists, was really pissed off recently when her son was refused a place at Edinburgh University. He has a glittering array of IGCSEs and AS levels, but wished to study history. Anybody doing a Humanity at Edinburgh is required to have a GCSE in a language. There are no exceptions to this rule. Being psychologically healthy, the mother concerned was pissed off not at Edinburgh University, but at herself for not thinking of this years ago and making sure that her son took an IGCSE in a language. She does not expect Edinburgh University to change their admissions criteria for her son.
Those giving advice on the home education lists and forums could do worse than adopt a similar attitude. It does the reputation of home education no good at all if parents are constantly trying to have the rules changed because they have been unable or unwilling to get their kids through the same examinations as everybody else. Instead of complaining about the admissions criteria, whether for an FE College or Russell Group university, parents might do worse than find out all about them years in advance and then make sure that their children are on a level playing field with everybody else. Home educating parents are often seen by education professionals as being a bit of a nuisance and every time somebody plays silly beggars like this, attempting to get her son onto a course for which he is not qualified, it simply reinforces that prejudice. It would be a better advertisement for home education if teenagers were to be turning up at FE colleges with more and better qualifications than the children from the maintained schools. If that happened for a few years, then perhaps it would help home education shake off this image of being something which is usually undertaken by cranks, misfits and troublemakers. This generally is what teachers and lecturers expect when they ecounter a home educating family and it would be nice to see more families which did not conform to this stereotype. This would, in the long run, benefit all home educators.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
A woman after my own heart
Commenting yesterday, somebody suggested that a major theme in my blogposts is 'Women are sillier than men'. I can't think that this is true. I think rather that I have hinted that I find a lot of British home educators whose views appear on the internet silly and the great majority of these are women. I find most politicians silly and they are nearly all men. Perhaps the person who made this comment is no logician and got a bit muddled up. At any rate, it is time to celebrate a woman whose book has recently been published. Amy Chua, a professor of law at Yale University, has written the best book on parenting and education which I have read in a very long while. It is called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother and details may be found here;
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymn-Tiger-Mother-Chua/dp/1594202842
Here are a couple of reviews;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/8271303/Battle-Hymn-of-the-TigerMother-by-Amy-Chua-review.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/29/tiger-mother-amy-chua-review
Chua's thesis is that western parenting methods are utterly useless and tend to produce mediocrity. She cannot understand why any parent would praise their child for getting a grade B, instead of criticising her for not getting an A. As a personal aside, from the time my own daughter was twelve and was doing IGCSEs, the saying in our house was 'As are for losers'. Anything other than an A* was regarded as a failure and when she heard of friends who had gained As or Bs at their GCSEs, we would refer to them as having failed their exams. This motto has been retained for A levels.
Chua was mercilessly strict with her two daughters, allowing no television or computer games for instance. Quite right too. Again, my daughter was not allowed such foolishness either. In fact every page of this book cries out to be quoted. It is one of those books which one reads where somebody expresses views that are seldom heard and yet perfectly true. If there were more mothers around like Amy Chua, I have a suspicion that academic standards in this country would soar, regardless of what was done to schools. Academic success begins in the home and with the right home environment may be achieved whatever the school. I can heartily recommend this book to all home educating parents as a pattern for excellence. Here at least is one woman whom I am unlikely to describe as sillier than a man!
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymn-Tiger-Mother-Chua/dp/1594202842
Here are a couple of reviews;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/8271303/Battle-Hymn-of-the-TigerMother-by-Amy-Chua-review.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/29/tiger-mother-amy-chua-review
Chua's thesis is that western parenting methods are utterly useless and tend to produce mediocrity. She cannot understand why any parent would praise their child for getting a grade B, instead of criticising her for not getting an A. As a personal aside, from the time my own daughter was twelve and was doing IGCSEs, the saying in our house was 'As are for losers'. Anything other than an A* was regarded as a failure and when she heard of friends who had gained As or Bs at their GCSEs, we would refer to them as having failed their exams. This motto has been retained for A levels.
Chua was mercilessly strict with her two daughters, allowing no television or computer games for instance. Quite right too. Again, my daughter was not allowed such foolishness either. In fact every page of this book cries out to be quoted. It is one of those books which one reads where somebody expresses views that are seldom heard and yet perfectly true. If there were more mothers around like Amy Chua, I have a suspicion that academic standards in this country would soar, regardless of what was done to schools. Academic success begins in the home and with the right home environment may be achieved whatever the school. I can heartily recommend this book to all home educating parents as a pattern for excellence. Here at least is one woman whom I am unlikely to describe as sillier than a man!
Friday, 28 January 2011
School to be run by home educating parents
It will be interesting to see how this works out:
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/yourtown/witney/8768394.Free_school_targets_Cogges_farm-home/
The idea of a bunch of home educators running a school sounds a bit weird.
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/yourtown/witney/8768394.Free_school_targets_Cogges_farm-home/
The idea of a bunch of home educators running a school sounds a bit weird.
In the USA
I dare say that most home educating parents in this country are aware by now that over two million children in the USA are being educated at home. Here is a piece about this;
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/5821-two-million-home-schooled-new-study-estimates
I was interested to see the bit in this article about home educated children doing better at the SAT and ACT college entrance tests. This has been touted before as evidence that home education is better for children than schooling, but it is worth looking a little closer at this claim.
Students who wish to attend college or university in the USA sit either the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) or the ACT (American College Testing). These give a rough idea of the academic attainment. There are components for reasoning, maths, science, reading and so on. For the last eight or nine years, students have been specifically asked if they are home educated. This allows us to judge the educational standard of home educated kids as opposed to those who have been to school. Because every college student takes these tests, the results are not biased by self-selection. (Of course they are biased by the fact that only those applying for college take the tests; of which, more later)
The ACT is scored from 1 to 36. The average score is 21 and home educated young people average 23. This is a very slight advantage, but the individual parts of the test reveal something interesting. In reading, the home educated teenagers are very much ahead of their peers. They are roughly level in science and a bit behind in maths. This means that the only advantage that home education seems to have given them is a greater fluency and improved comprehension in reading. This is good, but it should be borne in mind when we are told that evidence from America shows that home educated children are in advance of those who went to school.
Another point to consider is this. The proportion of home educated young people applying to college is lower than the average population. The obvious explanation for this is that those taught at home are less likely to go to college or university. Those that do go to college do better on average than the schooled, but fewer go in the first place.
Because home education is so well established in the USA, it is a good place to look for evidence of its efficacy. The latest research shows that it is certainly no worse than schooling, but probably not a great deal better. This is encouraging and it would be good to see some research conducted in this country
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/5821-two-million-home-schooled-new-study-estimates
I was interested to see the bit in this article about home educated children doing better at the SAT and ACT college entrance tests. This has been touted before as evidence that home education is better for children than schooling, but it is worth looking a little closer at this claim.
Students who wish to attend college or university in the USA sit either the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) or the ACT (American College Testing). These give a rough idea of the academic attainment. There are components for reasoning, maths, science, reading and so on. For the last eight or nine years, students have been specifically asked if they are home educated. This allows us to judge the educational standard of home educated kids as opposed to those who have been to school. Because every college student takes these tests, the results are not biased by self-selection. (Of course they are biased by the fact that only those applying for college take the tests; of which, more later)
The ACT is scored from 1 to 36. The average score is 21 and home educated young people average 23. This is a very slight advantage, but the individual parts of the test reveal something interesting. In reading, the home educated teenagers are very much ahead of their peers. They are roughly level in science and a bit behind in maths. This means that the only advantage that home education seems to have given them is a greater fluency and improved comprehension in reading. This is good, but it should be borne in mind when we are told that evidence from America shows that home educated children are in advance of those who went to school.
Another point to consider is this. The proportion of home educated young people applying to college is lower than the average population. The obvious explanation for this is that those taught at home are less likely to go to college or university. Those that do go to college do better on average than the schooled, but fewer go in the first place.
Because home education is so well established in the USA, it is a good place to look for evidence of its efficacy. The latest research shows that it is certainly no worse than schooling, but probably not a great deal better. This is encouraging and it would be good to see some research conducted in this country
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
