Sunday, 8 July 2012
More than meets the eye...
Honestly, there’s no pleasing some people! In April, Nikki Harper became annoyed with her local authority because of their new policy on home education. She embarked upon a crusade to force them to alter their course, which included Freedom of Information Requests, long letters to various councillors and local authority officers and blogging an astonishing five thousand words in just three days about the subject. I assumed that there was more to this than met the eye and that there had perhaps been some previous friction between the Harpers and Lincolnshire County Council. Somebody commenting here on the post about Trivialising the Holocaust said, ‘Methinks the lady doth protest too much’. I thought so too and then put a comment to the effect that nobody writes five thousand words like that after receiving a routine letter and that there was more to this than we were being told.
Nikki Harper then posted a comment here a few days ago, claiming that this comment suggested that there might be something sinister and that the hint was that this related to her family. Since I had not meant anything of the sort, I re-read what I had written and decided that if looked at from a certain perspective, it could be taken like that. I accordingly removed the comment, because I did not think it fair to leave something like that which might be capable of that construction.
Lo and behold, today Nikki Harper feels that this is a sign that I feel guilty about the original comment. Let me make this as plain as I possibly can. I think that there is more to her dispute with Lincolnshire County Council than meets the eye. I do not think that this has anything to do with her family. I believe it is because she is the sort of demented character who is always falling out with people; whether it her council, me or members of the management of the spiritualist church in Scunthorpe. I suspect that she has rowed with her local authority before and this is why she is so furious with them now.
I tried to smooth things over by removing a comment which was ambiguous, but I can see that when dealing with such a person, this is a bad mistake; she takes such actions as signs of weakness and guilt. I hope that this will be the last time I have to write about this wretched woman and I am tempted to contact Lincolnshire County Council and tell them that they have my sympathy!
Defaming the Harpers
No class of person is more loathsome to me than those who exploit vulnerable people, such as the grief-stricken and bereaved, by pretending to have supernatural powers. I detest this sort of thing and avoid those involved in it wherever possible. Sometimes, it is impossible to give them a wide berth and when I do come into contact with people mixed up in that racket I am always sure to make my feelings known pretty plainly.
I am currently being threatened with legal action for libel because of remarks which I have made on here about a husband and wife team who claim to possess magic powers to foretell the future and summon up the dead. It is a pretty awful way to make a living and I have passed several comments about them on here, because they are also home educators.
Let us look at what I have said about these two characters and see whether or not it actually amounts to libel. This will give me an opportunity to repeat the statements of which they complain and to expand upon them, thus making it easier for them to bring action against me if they wish; a prospect to which I look forward with relish. Imagine sitting in a court and watching somebody try and prove that he is really in touch with the dead!
I must first say a few words about libel. The essence of a libel is that it is an untrue statement which tends to lower the person about whom it is made in the estimation of right-thinking people. It must be a statement of fact, rather than opinion. If I say, ‘Smith is an idiot’, this is not libellous because it is clearly my opinion. If, on the other hand, I say, ‘Smith is a thief’, this is a statement of supposed fact and could be libellous. The statements which I have made about the Harpers are a mixture of opinion and fact.
One of the statements which I have made, to which Mrs Harper objects and about which she threatens legal action, was that, ‘she is a very odd person called Nikki Harper who, with her husband, contacts the dead and reads the skies for a living.’ Clearly, the suggestion that she is a very odd person is my opinion and could not possibly be libellous. The statement that she and her husband contact the dead and read the skies for a living is a statement of fact and might well lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people. If untrue, it might be considered libellous; but is it untrue? Mrs Harper claims that at least part of the statement is untrue. She says bluntly of her husband, ' he doesn't make a living from being a medium.' The problem here is that both she and her husband claim in various places that contacting the dead is exactly what he does for a living. For example on Home-Education Biz, Mrs Harper says: ‘my husband I work full time from home. I'm an astrologer, author and writer, and he is a spiritualist medium and healer.’ and also, ’ My husband works as a platform medium in spiritualist churches, and does private readings’ This may be seen here:
http://www.home-education.biz/forum/introduce-your-business/14607-astrology-teen-spirituality-and-mediumship.html
On her blog, the same one where she is threatening to sue me, Nikki Harper states that, ‘I am an astrologer and mind body spirit author; my husband writes too and is a spiritualist medium and healer. We both work from home.’ This may be found here:
http://secondaryathome.wordpress.com/about-us/
Finally, her husband is on Linked in as a self-employed medium. See here:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Jon/Harper
Is anybody left in any doubt at all that Nikki Harper reads the skies for a living or that her husband contacts the dead? I cannot imagine why either of them should wish to deny it, although they may of course be ashamed of their careers; as who would not be?
Another statement to which Mrs Harper objected was contained in this post of mine:
http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/meanwhile-back-at-asylum.html
You will see that I said, ‘There is something quite terrifying about madness like this. One recognises some of the usual suspects here, people like Nikki Harper from Lincolnshire who is quoted. I do hope that local authorities are reading this stuff, so that they have an idea of the sort of disordered thinking which affects some parents supposedly capable of delivering an education to their children.’
Now Nikki Harper did not actually take part in this conference and nor did I say that she did. A post of hers is linked as evidence though, in Section 9. She posted this under the name ’Elysian’. It is perfectly true that I recognised most of those who are seen on this conference, as well as those to whom the links lead one. How this could be considered libellous is another matter. I did not think, nor did I say, that she took part in the thing. As for the bit about disordered thinking, I cannot do better than quote Mrs Harper herself on the subject of her daughter's education, ' XXXX is showing a real interest in herbalism, spell work and so on.' Spell work; that would be spells as in magic spells, yes? Does anybody here think that teaching a seven year-old to take a real interest in casting magic spells is not an example of disordered thinking? This is not incidentally make-believe; the mother really believes in this stuff and was actively encouraging her child to do the same. What about the statement that, 'Aquamarine prevents water-retention'? Water retention can be a symptom of various serious problems, including congestive heart failure, kidney failure and pre-eclampsia. Hands up everybody who thinks that it is disordered thinking to expect the possession of a semi-precious stone to help with potentially fatal health problems like these? This advice may be found here;
http://spiritodyssey.com/astrological-crystals-and-gems/#more-284
The third thing which apparently upset Mrs Harper was an attempt to connect her husband to Martin Smith, the home educating ’psychic’ who was convicted of rape and then hanged himself. She said, ’ I was disgusted to read the indirect linking of my husband and Martin Smith by either you or one of your commenters’ I have drawn a complete blank on this. I have certainly made no such connection and nor can I find any in the comments on this blog. However, following what Mrs Harper said, I looked into the matter and found one faint and tenuous link between her husband and Martin Smith. Jon Harper has appeared on stage with Ian Lawman, a rather dubious character about whom various allegations have been made. This fellow has been on Britain’s Most Haunted, a television programme on which Martin Smith also appeared. So the most we can say is that Nikki Harper’s husband shared a stage with a man who might have met Martin Smith. I had to dig around even to find this and would never have done so if Mrs Harper herself had not put the idea into my head!
I do hope that the Harpers follow through on their threats to sue me. If they really feel that I have made untruthful statements about them which tend to lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people, then I urge them to go ahead and issue a writ. I shall not post any more on the subject here, because it really has little enough to do with home education, which is after all the purpose of this blog!
I am currently being threatened with legal action for libel because of remarks which I have made on here about a husband and wife team who claim to possess magic powers to foretell the future and summon up the dead. It is a pretty awful way to make a living and I have passed several comments about them on here, because they are also home educators.
Let us look at what I have said about these two characters and see whether or not it actually amounts to libel. This will give me an opportunity to repeat the statements of which they complain and to expand upon them, thus making it easier for them to bring action against me if they wish; a prospect to which I look forward with relish. Imagine sitting in a court and watching somebody try and prove that he is really in touch with the dead!
I must first say a few words about libel. The essence of a libel is that it is an untrue statement which tends to lower the person about whom it is made in the estimation of right-thinking people. It must be a statement of fact, rather than opinion. If I say, ‘Smith is an idiot’, this is not libellous because it is clearly my opinion. If, on the other hand, I say, ‘Smith is a thief’, this is a statement of supposed fact and could be libellous. The statements which I have made about the Harpers are a mixture of opinion and fact.
One of the statements which I have made, to which Mrs Harper objects and about which she threatens legal action, was that, ‘she is a very odd person called Nikki Harper who, with her husband, contacts the dead and reads the skies for a living.’ Clearly, the suggestion that she is a very odd person is my opinion and could not possibly be libellous. The statement that she and her husband contact the dead and read the skies for a living is a statement of fact and might well lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people. If untrue, it might be considered libellous; but is it untrue? Mrs Harper claims that at least part of the statement is untrue. She says bluntly of her husband, ' he doesn't make a living from being a medium.' The problem here is that both she and her husband claim in various places that contacting the dead is exactly what he does for a living. For example on Home-Education Biz, Mrs Harper says: ‘my husband I work full time from home. I'm an astrologer, author and writer, and he is a spiritualist medium and healer.’ and also, ’ My husband works as a platform medium in spiritualist churches, and does private readings’ This may be seen here:
http://www.home-education.biz/forum/introduce-your-business/14607-astrology-teen-spirituality-and-mediumship.html
On her blog, the same one where she is threatening to sue me, Nikki Harper states that, ‘I am an astrologer and mind body spirit author; my husband writes too and is a spiritualist medium and healer. We both work from home.’ This may be found here:
http://secondaryathome.wordpress.com/about-us/
Finally, her husband is on Linked in as a self-employed medium. See here:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Jon/Harper
Is anybody left in any doubt at all that Nikki Harper reads the skies for a living or that her husband contacts the dead? I cannot imagine why either of them should wish to deny it, although they may of course be ashamed of their careers; as who would not be?
Another statement to which Mrs Harper objected was contained in this post of mine:
http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/meanwhile-back-at-asylum.html
You will see that I said, ‘There is something quite terrifying about madness like this. One recognises some of the usual suspects here, people like Nikki Harper from Lincolnshire who is quoted. I do hope that local authorities are reading this stuff, so that they have an idea of the sort of disordered thinking which affects some parents supposedly capable of delivering an education to their children.’
Now Nikki Harper did not actually take part in this conference and nor did I say that she did. A post of hers is linked as evidence though, in Section 9. She posted this under the name ’Elysian’. It is perfectly true that I recognised most of those who are seen on this conference, as well as those to whom the links lead one. How this could be considered libellous is another matter. I did not think, nor did I say, that she took part in the thing. As for the bit about disordered thinking, I cannot do better than quote Mrs Harper herself on the subject of her daughter's education, ' XXXX is showing a real interest in herbalism, spell work and so on.' Spell work; that would be spells as in magic spells, yes? Does anybody here think that teaching a seven year-old to take a real interest in casting magic spells is not an example of disordered thinking? This is not incidentally make-believe; the mother really believes in this stuff and was actively encouraging her child to do the same. What about the statement that, 'Aquamarine prevents water-retention'? Water retention can be a symptom of various serious problems, including congestive heart failure, kidney failure and pre-eclampsia. Hands up everybody who thinks that it is disordered thinking to expect the possession of a semi-precious stone to help with potentially fatal health problems like these? This advice may be found here;
http://spiritodyssey.com/astrological-crystals-and-gems/#more-284
The third thing which apparently upset Mrs Harper was an attempt to connect her husband to Martin Smith, the home educating ’psychic’ who was convicted of rape and then hanged himself. She said, ’ I was disgusted to read the indirect linking of my husband and Martin Smith by either you or one of your commenters’ I have drawn a complete blank on this. I have certainly made no such connection and nor can I find any in the comments on this blog. However, following what Mrs Harper said, I looked into the matter and found one faint and tenuous link between her husband and Martin Smith. Jon Harper has appeared on stage with Ian Lawman, a rather dubious character about whom various allegations have been made. This fellow has been on Britain’s Most Haunted, a television programme on which Martin Smith also appeared. So the most we can say is that Nikki Harper’s husband shared a stage with a man who might have met Martin Smith. I had to dig around even to find this and would never have done so if Mrs Harper herself had not put the idea into my head!
I do hope that the Harpers follow through on their threats to sue me. If they really feel that I have made untruthful statements about them which tend to lower them in the estimation of right-thinking people, then I urge them to go ahead and issue a writ. I shall not post any more on the subject here, because it really has little enough to do with home education, which is after all the purpose of this blog!
The Education Committee considers support for home educators
As most readers will be aware, the Education Committee, a select committee, has launched an enquiry into the support available for home education in this country. It seems to me inevitable that this enquiry will lead eventually to more involvement by local authorities into the lives of many home educators. One of the problems that some home educators face is that they would like their children to take GCSEs and other examinations, but lack both the expertise and money to arrange them. It is manifestly unjust that a home educated child whose parents have perhaps been paying taxes for years should have to pay again to access GCSEs. It is also to the benefit of society in general that more of the fifty thousand or so children currently being educated at home should gain GCSEs. This would help them to progress into further and higher education and also make them more attractive to potential employers. I have an idea that this is one area of support where the select committee might make a definite recommendation.
This is all well and good, but the implications for both those who do want their children to take exams and also those who do not, are profound. Let us look first at those parents who do wish their children to sit GCSEs. Children at school typically sit eight or ten GCSEs; obviously, if you are going to provide finance and other assistance for home educated children to sit them and the local authorities will be receiving the Age Weighted Pupil Units for each child, then some parents will want their children to sit the same number as pupils in schools. My own daughter took eight IGCSEs and if the local authority had been offering financial help, then I would have expected them to pay for those GCSEs that I wanted my child to sit. Now all this will mean spending public money. You can’t just chuck it around willy nilly and so we hit the first difficulty. How will local authorities know whether or not they are simply wasting the money by entering some child for ten GCSEs? They would be unlikely to take my word for it that my daughter knew enough about physics to get an A*; they would want to make sure that they weren’t wasting time and money arranging for her to sit physics. For all they know, she might be barely literate, the whole thing might really be a pointless enterprise for all concerned. Perhaps she should just sit one or two, in perhaps English and maths, rather than physics, chemistry, history and geography as well? Even then, if they did enter her for maths, should she be entered for foundation or higher? How can they find out what level she is at in the various subjects?
Already, before the scheme is even off the ground, testing of the academic achievements of home educated children by local authority officers has appeared. Indeed, it is an inevitable development if once you concede that the local authority will be assessing the amount of money to be spent on arranging for these children to take examinations. Still, it might be argued, this is all voluntary. Only those parents who wish their children to take GCSEs will be involved. Just because I want my daughter to sit GCSEs, that does not mean that an autonomously educating parent in the next street would have to do the same. Nobody would have to submit to this testing and all these questions. This is ingenuous. If once local authorities begin regularly testing the abilities of home educated children, it will create an entirely new situation. This testing is bound to spread to parents whom the local authority will talk into it and encourage to become involved for the sake of their children, who would do so much better if they were to have a few GCSEs.
Now as it happens, I do not think that this would be a bad thing at all. Speaking personally, I would like local authorities to ask more questions of parents and to see how their children were doing; whether they really were being provided with a suitable education and so on. I would be glad if local authority officers were to start pressing parents to think about GCSEs and doing their best to see that the children studied for and took them. Not everybody feels this way though.
The point I am making is this. What sounds like a perfectly innocuous and well-meaning idea, making it easier for those who want to enter their children for examinations, has serious implications for the future of all home educating parents. It has the potential to create conflict a few years down the line, if taking GCSEs became the aim of local authorities for home educated children in their area, rather than simply an optional service which they provided. I think that people need to think about this a little before championing one side or the other in this question. They need particularly to think carefully before expressing too vehemently these views before select committees or to local authorities.
This is all well and good, but the implications for both those who do want their children to take exams and also those who do not, are profound. Let us look first at those parents who do wish their children to sit GCSEs. Children at school typically sit eight or ten GCSEs; obviously, if you are going to provide finance and other assistance for home educated children to sit them and the local authorities will be receiving the Age Weighted Pupil Units for each child, then some parents will want their children to sit the same number as pupils in schools. My own daughter took eight IGCSEs and if the local authority had been offering financial help, then I would have expected them to pay for those GCSEs that I wanted my child to sit. Now all this will mean spending public money. You can’t just chuck it around willy nilly and so we hit the first difficulty. How will local authorities know whether or not they are simply wasting the money by entering some child for ten GCSEs? They would be unlikely to take my word for it that my daughter knew enough about physics to get an A*; they would want to make sure that they weren’t wasting time and money arranging for her to sit physics. For all they know, she might be barely literate, the whole thing might really be a pointless enterprise for all concerned. Perhaps she should just sit one or two, in perhaps English and maths, rather than physics, chemistry, history and geography as well? Even then, if they did enter her for maths, should she be entered for foundation or higher? How can they find out what level she is at in the various subjects?
Already, before the scheme is even off the ground, testing of the academic achievements of home educated children by local authority officers has appeared. Indeed, it is an inevitable development if once you concede that the local authority will be assessing the amount of money to be spent on arranging for these children to take examinations. Still, it might be argued, this is all voluntary. Only those parents who wish their children to take GCSEs will be involved. Just because I want my daughter to sit GCSEs, that does not mean that an autonomously educating parent in the next street would have to do the same. Nobody would have to submit to this testing and all these questions. This is ingenuous. If once local authorities begin regularly testing the abilities of home educated children, it will create an entirely new situation. This testing is bound to spread to parents whom the local authority will talk into it and encourage to become involved for the sake of their children, who would do so much better if they were to have a few GCSEs.
Now as it happens, I do not think that this would be a bad thing at all. Speaking personally, I would like local authorities to ask more questions of parents and to see how their children were doing; whether they really were being provided with a suitable education and so on. I would be glad if local authority officers were to start pressing parents to think about GCSEs and doing their best to see that the children studied for and took them. Not everybody feels this way though.
The point I am making is this. What sounds like a perfectly innocuous and well-meaning idea, making it easier for those who want to enter their children for examinations, has serious implications for the future of all home educating parents. It has the potential to create conflict a few years down the line, if taking GCSEs became the aim of local authorities for home educated children in their area, rather than simply an optional service which they provided. I think that people need to think about this a little before championing one side or the other in this question. They need particularly to think carefully before expressing too vehemently these views before select committees or to local authorities.
Saturday, 7 July 2012
Exciting opportunities to meet me in person
Several times in the last few days it has been suggested here that I might start a second blog in addition to this one. Even Nikki Harper seemed yesterday to be inexplicably eager to hear more of my views and opinions and asked whether I had ever considered starting a blog on the Huffington Post. Immensely flattering of course that people seem to want to hear even more from me. It is a tempting idea, but quite impractical. I am assuming that most readers are aware that I am in fact a professional writer. This blog is merely by way of being a little light relief and relaxation from the serious business of writing books. There is a definite limit on the amount of time which I am able to spare for it, because I have three books currently on the go and the deadlines for all are looming. I really do not have the leisure to begin a new blog; no matter how much in demand such a new place appears to be, where folk could read in greater detail what I think about a variety of subjects ranging from education to crystal healing. Vox Populi, Vox Dei and so on, but I am afraid the answer will have to be ‘no‘. Do not despair though, because several more of my books have been published in the last month or two and those keen to read more of what I have to say can always buy them.
Even better, at least from the point of view of those who are evidently so enamoured of me as an author, I have a few signings and lectures coming up this month, which will provide readers not only with the opportunity to become better acquainted with me and my thoughts on various topics, but actually to meet me in person! Perhaps if I provide details of a few of these, readers might like to make a note in their diaries of the dates. On Saturday, July 14th at 11:00AM, I shall be signing copies at Waterstones in Romford of my latest book, A 1960s East End Childhood;
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=2&store=408%7CWATERSTONE'S%20ROMFORD&sFilter=1
This event is expected to be well attended, so arrive early to avoid disappointment. I shall be happy also to sign copies of Elective Home Education in the UK if any home educators would like to bring them along and will also be at liberty to receive any writs for libel that people might wish to serve!
On the evening of Wednesday, July 18th, I shall be giving a talk on the history of terrorism in this country from Queen Victoria’s reign to the present day;
http://www.housmans.com/events.php
This is to promote another of my recent books; Dynamite, Treason and Plot; Terrorism in Victorian and Edwardian London. Housman’s is not a large shop, so readers might wish to get there half an hour or so before the lecture begins if they wish to be sure of a place.
The next day, Thursday July 19th, I will be at Waterstones in Notting Hill, to sign copies of my book, Not a Guide to Kensington and Chelsea;
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/simon+webb/kensington+26+chelsea+not+a+guide+to/8663882/
I shall be hosting a quiz, with the prize being a copy of the book itself. There is a charge for this event, although a free glass of wine and snacks will be provided.
On August 4th, I shall be at W H Smiths in the Bentall Centre in Kingston upon Thames from 11:00 to 3:00, signing copies of yet another recent book, Not a Guide to Kingston upon Thames:
http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=9780752479682
There are other events, but they will be smaller affairs at independent bookshops and colleges. It is to be hoped that some of the loyal readers of this blog living in London and the south east will be able to find the time to come and meet me in person; a rare treat indeed. It will scarcely be credited, but I am even more intolerably self-opinionated in real life than I am in print! I look forward to seeing some of you soon.
Even better, at least from the point of view of those who are evidently so enamoured of me as an author, I have a few signings and lectures coming up this month, which will provide readers not only with the opportunity to become better acquainted with me and my thoughts on various topics, but actually to meet me in person! Perhaps if I provide details of a few of these, readers might like to make a note in their diaries of the dates. On Saturday, July 14th at 11:00AM, I shall be signing copies at Waterstones in Romford of my latest book, A 1960s East End Childhood;
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=2&store=408%7CWATERSTONE'S%20ROMFORD&sFilter=1
This event is expected to be well attended, so arrive early to avoid disappointment. I shall be happy also to sign copies of Elective Home Education in the UK if any home educators would like to bring them along and will also be at liberty to receive any writs for libel that people might wish to serve!
On the evening of Wednesday, July 18th, I shall be giving a talk on the history of terrorism in this country from Queen Victoria’s reign to the present day;
http://www.housmans.com/events.php
This is to promote another of my recent books; Dynamite, Treason and Plot; Terrorism in Victorian and Edwardian London. Housman’s is not a large shop, so readers might wish to get there half an hour or so before the lecture begins if they wish to be sure of a place.
The next day, Thursday July 19th, I will be at Waterstones in Notting Hill, to sign copies of my book, Not a Guide to Kensington and Chelsea;
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/simon+webb/kensington+26+chelsea+not+a+guide+to/8663882/
I shall be hosting a quiz, with the prize being a copy of the book itself. There is a charge for this event, although a free glass of wine and snacks will be provided.
On August 4th, I shall be at W H Smiths in the Bentall Centre in Kingston upon Thames from 11:00 to 3:00, signing copies of yet another recent book, Not a Guide to Kingston upon Thames:
http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=9780752479682
There are other events, but they will be smaller affairs at independent bookshops and colleges. It is to be hoped that some of the loyal readers of this blog living in London and the south east will be able to find the time to come and meet me in person; a rare treat indeed. It will scarcely be credited, but I am even more intolerably self-opinionated in real life than I am in print! I look forward to seeing some of you soon.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
Home education in the Huffington Post
I have more than once been reproved here for suggesting that an awful lot of home educators are a bit loopy. Specifically, I have speculated from time to time whether there might be some sort of association between strange belief systems and the decision to home educate. Nonsense, I am told; this is purely an artefact of the internet , which is swarming with mad people. This is true, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that home educators who get into the public eye do tend to be a pretty rum bunch.
The latest such person is of course Nikki Harper, who now has a blog on the Huffington Post. Her latest post may be seen here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nikki-harper/7-lessons-i-teach_b_1622031.html
Now this all conjures up a very unflattering image of home education in the minds of those who know little about it. How the heart sinks to note that it is written by an astrologer who is, ‘passionate about teen spirituality’. Like most people, I have not the remotest idea what is meant by this. The blog post itself practically invites anybody with no knowledge of home education to ridicule the whole business.
The title alone tells one a great deal about a particular strand in British home education. If, when my daughter was thirteen, I had written a piece about the ‘seven lessons I teach’, I might perhaps have listed lessons like mathematics, English language, English literature, history, physics, chemistry and biology. Obviously, I would have hoped that she would also learn things like honesty, self-reliance and compassion, but these are not really things that one can teach. The best we can do is model them for our children and hope that we are providing a good example. Parents of children at school do this as well and to hint otherwise is merely to alienate the 99% of parents who do send their children to school. Hardly a good thing for a home educator to set out to do!
The main problem with the piece is that it is based not upon how schools really are, but upon how they used to be or how somebody who has no dealings with schools thinks they might be. According to the author, modern British schools teach subjects like confusion and indifference, but parents whose children actually attended school know that this is a lot of nonsense. Schools no more teach confusion than, say for example, home educating parents who lead their child to believe in crystal healing and raising the dead. Some schools teach confusion, as do some parents, both home educating and otherwise. Schools certainly do not hold some sort of monopoly on teaching it to children!
Consider just one of the contentions made about schools in this article; that, ‘A schooled child will learn facts’. If only this were true! This pedagogic approach, a Gradgrindian insistance on 'facts alone', is contrasted with the author's own methods, which emphasise context and overall understanding. As anybody at all familiar with modern schools will know only too well, a lot of the time is taken up not with learning facts but with all the paraphernalia of modern educational theory such as collaborative learning, investigative skills, empathy and so on. These techniques long ago replaced the acquisition of facts and figures by themselves. In fact much of what Mrs Harper sees as being a precious part of home education is a standard feature of British schools. I have written about this lack of objective teaching of facts in schools before, here for example in the Daily Telegraph;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3337822/But-how-did-Romeo-feel.html
Mrs Harper evidently believes that children studying history at school these days are still sitting down in rows copying out the dates of the Battle of Trafalgar and the Charge of the Light Brigade. Alas no; nothing could be further from the truth! It is this ignorance of how schools actually are which make this piece an easy and inviting target for those who do not like or approve of home education.
As for the idea that one would have to teach a child insubordination, because otherwise she might learn to obey authority without question; has this woman ever actually met any teenagers? Has she really met a teenager who has learned the lesson of obeying authority without question? Where is this strange being? I would like to talk to the parents of such a weird and atypical teenager so I could find out where I went wrong. My own teenage daughter never needed any lessons in insubordination nor, I suspect, do most teenagers! The very last thing most parents need to teach their teenage offspring is to challenge authority and ask questions; it is coded into the very DNA of teenagers and always has been. If she is genuinely having to teach her teenaged daughter to challenge authority and encourage her to ask questions, then there is something very odd going on.
All this is hardly a brilliant advertisement for home education; written as it is by a home educating parent who knows nothing about modern schools and thinks that teenagers need to be carefully coached in how to reject adult authority and question why they should do as they are told. The overall impression is of somebody who is perhaps not as in touch with the real world as she could be. Given her line of work this is of course hardly surprising, but it does not really encourage people to listen seriously to what she has to say about education.
The latest such person is of course Nikki Harper, who now has a blog on the Huffington Post. Her latest post may be seen here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nikki-harper/7-lessons-i-teach_b_1622031.html
Now this all conjures up a very unflattering image of home education in the minds of those who know little about it. How the heart sinks to note that it is written by an astrologer who is, ‘passionate about teen spirituality’. Like most people, I have not the remotest idea what is meant by this. The blog post itself practically invites anybody with no knowledge of home education to ridicule the whole business.
The title alone tells one a great deal about a particular strand in British home education. If, when my daughter was thirteen, I had written a piece about the ‘seven lessons I teach’, I might perhaps have listed lessons like mathematics, English language, English literature, history, physics, chemistry and biology. Obviously, I would have hoped that she would also learn things like honesty, self-reliance and compassion, but these are not really things that one can teach. The best we can do is model them for our children and hope that we are providing a good example. Parents of children at school do this as well and to hint otherwise is merely to alienate the 99% of parents who do send their children to school. Hardly a good thing for a home educator to set out to do!
The main problem with the piece is that it is based not upon how schools really are, but upon how they used to be or how somebody who has no dealings with schools thinks they might be. According to the author, modern British schools teach subjects like confusion and indifference, but parents whose children actually attended school know that this is a lot of nonsense. Schools no more teach confusion than, say for example, home educating parents who lead their child to believe in crystal healing and raising the dead. Some schools teach confusion, as do some parents, both home educating and otherwise. Schools certainly do not hold some sort of monopoly on teaching it to children!
Consider just one of the contentions made about schools in this article; that, ‘A schooled child will learn facts’. If only this were true! This pedagogic approach, a Gradgrindian insistance on 'facts alone', is contrasted with the author's own methods, which emphasise context and overall understanding. As anybody at all familiar with modern schools will know only too well, a lot of the time is taken up not with learning facts but with all the paraphernalia of modern educational theory such as collaborative learning, investigative skills, empathy and so on. These techniques long ago replaced the acquisition of facts and figures by themselves. In fact much of what Mrs Harper sees as being a precious part of home education is a standard feature of British schools. I have written about this lack of objective teaching of facts in schools before, here for example in the Daily Telegraph;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/3337822/But-how-did-Romeo-feel.html
Mrs Harper evidently believes that children studying history at school these days are still sitting down in rows copying out the dates of the Battle of Trafalgar and the Charge of the Light Brigade. Alas no; nothing could be further from the truth! It is this ignorance of how schools actually are which make this piece an easy and inviting target for those who do not like or approve of home education.
As for the idea that one would have to teach a child insubordination, because otherwise she might learn to obey authority without question; has this woman ever actually met any teenagers? Has she really met a teenager who has learned the lesson of obeying authority without question? Where is this strange being? I would like to talk to the parents of such a weird and atypical teenager so I could find out where I went wrong. My own teenage daughter never needed any lessons in insubordination nor, I suspect, do most teenagers! The very last thing most parents need to teach their teenage offspring is to challenge authority and ask questions; it is coded into the very DNA of teenagers and always has been. If she is genuinely having to teach her teenaged daughter to challenge authority and encourage her to ask questions, then there is something very odd going on.
All this is hardly a brilliant advertisement for home education; written as it is by a home educating parent who knows nothing about modern schools and thinks that teenagers need to be carefully coached in how to reject adult authority and question why they should do as they are told. The overall impression is of somebody who is perhaps not as in touch with the real world as she could be. Given her line of work this is of course hardly surprising, but it does not really encourage people to listen seriously to what she has to say about education.
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
The foundations of early reading
It was suggested yesterday that readers of this blog might be interested in a little more practical advice on the subject of home education and less criticism of the particular styles used by others. It is at least worth trying.
Because I was so fanatically structured in the education which I provided for my child, some have thought that this meant that it was a case of all work and no play for her. After all, how else could she have begun to read at fifteen months? In fact, the key to her education was play. Play, both symbolic play with toys like cars and dolls and also prtend play with a parent, is the foundation for reading, expressive and receptive language and indeed even coherent thought. Let us look at this idea a little and then tomorrow we can think about how to start teaching babies to read by using these ideas.
Reading is the most vital skill that any child growing up in a modern, industrial society will ever acquire. The ability to read fluently is absolutely crucial to every aspect of future educational attainment. Sadly, reading is a kill which many children struggle to master; in some cases having difficulties with the process even after they have left school.
The problem is essentially that learning to read is being left too late. By the time that children start school at the age of four or five, their brains are already far less receptive to the learning of new skills than they would have been at two or three. The ideal age for picking up the art of reading is probably at the same time that they begin to speak; that is to say around twelve months or so. We shall see later why this should be. Another problem is that the method used to teach reading in British schools , synthetic phonics, makes the whole process vastly more complicated than it need be. In fact learning to read can and should be as easy and natural for a young child as learning to speak.
At this point, some readers are probably scratching their heads and saying, "But you have to teach reading. Nobody teaches babies to speak; it just happens!" Well, yes........and no. It is of course perfectly true that we do not sit our babies down for "Talking Lessons". Never the less, we are in fact teaching them and by the very same method that can be used in order to teach them to read.
Before we look at the teaching of reading, let us look for a moment at the "teaching" of talking. When we listen to people speaking in ordinary situations, it is all but impossible to tell where one word ends and another begins. People do not, for example, say, "I am going to go to the shop". They say instead, "I'mgonnergototheshop". Words are slurred together, cut off, mangled and abbreviated until they all run together in a string of sounds. How on earth can a baby make sense of this string of noises? The answer is that she doesn't. She does not have to.
There is a particular style of speaking to infants which has been called "Motherese". The pitch of the voice is raised, the tempo is slowed and key words are stressed slightly, emphasised so that they stand out from the rest. Something like this perhaps, "Can you see the dog? Look, the dog is sitting up. What a nice little dog." Any attempt on the baby's part to reproduce the sound of the emphasised word is met with immediate reward, praise is lavished upon her. She need only make the initial sound and say, "Duh" and her mother will smile broadly and say, "That's right" Clever girl. Yes it's a dog." In effect, the mother is teaching her child how to speak! She models the word she is teaching and then reinforces her child's efforts at saying it herself.
The printed word, like spoken language, is usually presented in a vast jumble of incomprehensible components, only instead of hearing a cacophony of weird noises, the baby sees a forest of black squiggles. Look at any page of a book or newspaper and you will soon see the problem. Just as with so-called "Motherese", the trick is to present individual words so that they may be learnt entire.
We will be exploring different aspects of the reading process later on. In particular, we shall be looking at how the brain develops in childhood and then dealing with the nature of language generally and reading in particular. The important thing to remember is that just as parents were the best people to teach their children to talk, so too are they the best people by far to teach their own children to read. It is not a difficult task, far from it; in fact it is very enjoyable.
Before we look at the teaching of reading, it is probably worth stopping to think a little about what language actually is. Once we have done this, we shall be better placed to understand just what is happening when a child learns to read, because of course reading is really just a way of using language.
Broadly speaking, language is the ability to use and understand symbols for thinking and communicating. This covers everything from writing a birthday card to reading War and Peace, from reminding one's self about the important appointment that afternoon to formulating the theory of relativity. What do we mean by symbols? Nothing more than something which stands for or represents something else. Spoken words are symbols, as of course are letters and numbers printed on a page. Pictures are a kind of symbol too and so are toys. Acting or pretending are also symbolic. We shall see in a little while why this is important. For now, all we need to remember is that reading and speaking both entail using symbols; things that stand for other things.
We tend to take it for granted that children operate on the same level of symbolic understanding as we do, but it is not so. Just as they must learn to read words and decode their meaning, so too they have to learn to "read" pictures and toys. Just think for a moment about a picture of an orange. When we look at it, we of course see a splodge of orange printers ink on a page and identify it at once with the sweet, slightly tart citrus fruit that we have to peel. To a baby though, all this is nothing more than patches of colour. It certainly doesn't represent anything. Similarly, we see a toy car and recognise at once its symbolic nature. Although it is small, light and garishly coloured, we know very well that it is meant to represent the large metal object that takes us to work. Again, this is far from obvious to babies.
It has been said that a child's play is his work. That being so, toys are the tools of his trade. Their importance in the development of the growing child's understanding of the concept of symbols cannot be overstated. It is only by such activities as the use of a toy car and the growing realisation that it in some strange way represents Mummy's big car that the baby becomes familiar with the whole idea of one thing standing for another. Since this peculiar notion underpins not only reading, but also speaking and listening, we must make sure that the baby acquires a sound background and thorough grounding in the use of symbols. The reason for this is that the interpretation of two dimensional symbols, whether pictures, numbers or words, is the culmination of much mental effort on the child's part. To achieve this breakthrough in symbolic understanding requires a great deal of spadework beforehand.
Because I was so fanatically structured in the education which I provided for my child, some have thought that this meant that it was a case of all work and no play for her. After all, how else could she have begun to read at fifteen months? In fact, the key to her education was play. Play, both symbolic play with toys like cars and dolls and also prtend play with a parent, is the foundation for reading, expressive and receptive language and indeed even coherent thought. Let us look at this idea a little and then tomorrow we can think about how to start teaching babies to read by using these ideas.
Reading is the most vital skill that any child growing up in a modern, industrial society will ever acquire. The ability to read fluently is absolutely crucial to every aspect of future educational attainment. Sadly, reading is a kill which many children struggle to master; in some cases having difficulties with the process even after they have left school.
The problem is essentially that learning to read is being left too late. By the time that children start school at the age of four or five, their brains are already far less receptive to the learning of new skills than they would have been at two or three. The ideal age for picking up the art of reading is probably at the same time that they begin to speak; that is to say around twelve months or so. We shall see later why this should be. Another problem is that the method used to teach reading in British schools , synthetic phonics, makes the whole process vastly more complicated than it need be. In fact learning to read can and should be as easy and natural for a young child as learning to speak.
At this point, some readers are probably scratching their heads and saying, "But you have to teach reading. Nobody teaches babies to speak; it just happens!" Well, yes........and no. It is of course perfectly true that we do not sit our babies down for "Talking Lessons". Never the less, we are in fact teaching them and by the very same method that can be used in order to teach them to read.
Before we look at the teaching of reading, let us look for a moment at the "teaching" of talking. When we listen to people speaking in ordinary situations, it is all but impossible to tell where one word ends and another begins. People do not, for example, say, "I am going to go to the shop". They say instead, "I'mgonnergototheshop". Words are slurred together, cut off, mangled and abbreviated until they all run together in a string of sounds. How on earth can a baby make sense of this string of noises? The answer is that she doesn't. She does not have to.
There is a particular style of speaking to infants which has been called "Motherese". The pitch of the voice is raised, the tempo is slowed and key words are stressed slightly, emphasised so that they stand out from the rest. Something like this perhaps, "Can you see the dog? Look, the dog is sitting up. What a nice little dog." Any attempt on the baby's part to reproduce the sound of the emphasised word is met with immediate reward, praise is lavished upon her. She need only make the initial sound and say, "Duh" and her mother will smile broadly and say, "That's right" Clever girl. Yes it's a dog." In effect, the mother is teaching her child how to speak! She models the word she is teaching and then reinforces her child's efforts at saying it herself.
The printed word, like spoken language, is usually presented in a vast jumble of incomprehensible components, only instead of hearing a cacophony of weird noises, the baby sees a forest of black squiggles. Look at any page of a book or newspaper and you will soon see the problem. Just as with so-called "Motherese", the trick is to present individual words so that they may be learnt entire.
We will be exploring different aspects of the reading process later on. In particular, we shall be looking at how the brain develops in childhood and then dealing with the nature of language generally and reading in particular. The important thing to remember is that just as parents were the best people to teach their children to talk, so too are they the best people by far to teach their own children to read. It is not a difficult task, far from it; in fact it is very enjoyable.
Before we look at the teaching of reading, it is probably worth stopping to think a little about what language actually is. Once we have done this, we shall be better placed to understand just what is happening when a child learns to read, because of course reading is really just a way of using language.
Broadly speaking, language is the ability to use and understand symbols for thinking and communicating. This covers everything from writing a birthday card to reading War and Peace, from reminding one's self about the important appointment that afternoon to formulating the theory of relativity. What do we mean by symbols? Nothing more than something which stands for or represents something else. Spoken words are symbols, as of course are letters and numbers printed on a page. Pictures are a kind of symbol too and so are toys. Acting or pretending are also symbolic. We shall see in a little while why this is important. For now, all we need to remember is that reading and speaking both entail using symbols; things that stand for other things.
We tend to take it for granted that children operate on the same level of symbolic understanding as we do, but it is not so. Just as they must learn to read words and decode their meaning, so too they have to learn to "read" pictures and toys. Just think for a moment about a picture of an orange. When we look at it, we of course see a splodge of orange printers ink on a page and identify it at once with the sweet, slightly tart citrus fruit that we have to peel. To a baby though, all this is nothing more than patches of colour. It certainly doesn't represent anything. Similarly, we see a toy car and recognise at once its symbolic nature. Although it is small, light and garishly coloured, we know very well that it is meant to represent the large metal object that takes us to work. Again, this is far from obvious to babies.
It has been said that a child's play is his work. That being so, toys are the tools of his trade. Their importance in the development of the growing child's understanding of the concept of symbols cannot be overstated. It is only by such activities as the use of a toy car and the growing realisation that it in some strange way represents Mummy's big car that the baby becomes familiar with the whole idea of one thing standing for another. Since this peculiar notion underpins not only reading, but also speaking and listening, we must make sure that the baby acquires a sound background and thorough grounding in the use of symbols. The reason for this is that the interpretation of two dimensional symbols, whether pictures, numbers or words, is the culmination of much mental effort on the child's part. To achieve this breakthrough in symbolic understanding requires a great deal of spadework beforehand.
How the autonomous acquisition of literacy in this country relies upon universal schooling
I drew attention a few days ago to the fact that in countries where there is not universal schooling, literacy rates tend to be low. Somebody commenting here then said that the autonomous acquisition of literacy as practiced by some parents in this country is predicated upon children growing up in a literate environment; surrounded by the printed word. Others have made this point; among them Paul Goodman, John Holt and Alan Thomas. Reference has been made to the ‘sea of literacy’ which envelops children in Britain and America, allegedly making it easy for them simply to pick up literacy informally. Not one of those advocating this way of learning to read seems to have considered the implications of such a state of affairs.
At one time in this country, few people could read. Shops had signs consisting of recognisable objects rather than words. The three golden balls for the pawnbroker and the red and white barber’s pole are relics of this; as are the painted images on pub signs. As more children attended school, so the literacy rate rose. Once schooling was all but universal, the literacy rate grew to around 100%. This means that there is printed matter wherever we look. Free newspaper and advertisements are quite literally thrust upon us, being pushed through our letterboxes. It would be hard to avoid seeing printed words each day. In a country like Bangladesh, where fewer than 50% of children go to school for five years or more, the literacy rate is below 50%. It is growing though. As the rates of schooling increase, so too does the literacy rate. There is a direct and strong correlation between the move to universal schooling and the achievement of 100% literacy in a country.
What this means is that parents in this country who choose not to send their children to school and allow them to acquire literacy informally by immersing themselves in the ‘sea of literacy’ are benefiting from universal schooling just as much as those who do send their kids to school. They are riding on the back of compulsory schooling. The universal schooling produces the literate society which is needed for the autonomous acquisition of literacy. It is rather like vaccination. When vaccination levels for measles are almost universal, the disease becomes very rare. When the levels of vaccination fall, the result is a measles epidemic. This does not of course mean that one child who is not vaccinated will get measles; merely that he still benefits from the protection afforded by all those who have been vaccinated.
It is common for autonomously educating parents to moan about the efforts made by local authorities to ensure that all children attend school. This is a little ungracious, because without universal schooling of the kind we have in this country, there would be no literate society, no ‘sea of literacy’. Their own method, that of letting their children acquire literacy informally from observing the world around them, would then be impossible. Autonomous educators actually need schools at which almost 100% of children are taught, in order to create the correct environment for their own children to learn effectively.
At one time in this country, few people could read. Shops had signs consisting of recognisable objects rather than words. The three golden balls for the pawnbroker and the red and white barber’s pole are relics of this; as are the painted images on pub signs. As more children attended school, so the literacy rate rose. Once schooling was all but universal, the literacy rate grew to around 100%. This means that there is printed matter wherever we look. Free newspaper and advertisements are quite literally thrust upon us, being pushed through our letterboxes. It would be hard to avoid seeing printed words each day. In a country like Bangladesh, where fewer than 50% of children go to school for five years or more, the literacy rate is below 50%. It is growing though. As the rates of schooling increase, so too does the literacy rate. There is a direct and strong correlation between the move to universal schooling and the achievement of 100% literacy in a country.
What this means is that parents in this country who choose not to send their children to school and allow them to acquire literacy informally by immersing themselves in the ‘sea of literacy’ are benefiting from universal schooling just as much as those who do send their kids to school. They are riding on the back of compulsory schooling. The universal schooling produces the literate society which is needed for the autonomous acquisition of literacy. It is rather like vaccination. When vaccination levels for measles are almost universal, the disease becomes very rare. When the levels of vaccination fall, the result is a measles epidemic. This does not of course mean that one child who is not vaccinated will get measles; merely that he still benefits from the protection afforded by all those who have been vaccinated.
It is common for autonomously educating parents to moan about the efforts made by local authorities to ensure that all children attend school. This is a little ungracious, because without universal schooling of the kind we have in this country, there would be no literate society, no ‘sea of literacy’. Their own method, that of letting their children acquire literacy informally from observing the world around them, would then be impossible. Autonomous educators actually need schools at which almost 100% of children are taught, in order to create the correct environment for their own children to learn effectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
