In a comment on the last piece which I posted here, somebody asked whether I could cite any research in support of my statement that autonomously educated children were often late in learning to read. It is, on the face of it, a fair question. Of course there is no research at all worth mentioning on this subject. Such as there is, does indeed support my contention, of which more later.
One of the main reasons which home educating parents give for not sending their children to school is that they object to the constant testing of children and consequent pressure on them to perform. As a result, many parents have an ambivalent or in many cases downright hostile attitude to the idea of their children taking part in a programme of testing. I am of course talking of this country. Whenever I have mentioned the need for extensive research on this Blog, there are objections to the idea as being unnecessary. Because of this, the only research into autonomously educated children tends to be that carried out by sympathetic types like Paula Rothermel and Alan Thomas. The idea of an educational psychologist testing autonomously educated children en masse would, I suspect, be anathema to most home educating parents.
We are left with very small scale samples made by "believers". There seems to have been no objective survey of this subject by anybody! Again, I think that most parents would object to their children being tested by a professional who was actually opposed to home education. Under these circumstances, it is almost impossible to gather data. I have looked previously at Paula Rothermel's work on literacy among home educated children. Her response was to pull the original work from her website, thus making it impossible for the casual enquirer to check the methodology. Let us look instead at what Alan Thomas says about late reading.
In his book "How Children Learn at Home", he says, "...many children learned to read 'late' by school norms. Resistance to being taught and late reading both featured in the earlier research." The work in "How Children Learn at home" was with twenty six parents. Whenever he quotes one, he uses a number between one and twenty six to identify the speaker. In the section on late reading, he identifies thirteen out of the twenty six parents as being parents of late readers. This is 50%. Most would see that as a pretty high prevalence of late reading.
In previous comments on this Blog, some have tried to fly the idea that because 20% of children do not reach the government's own targets on literacy, this means that 20% is a base line figure for reading difficulties. It is suggested that this is also the figure among autonomously educated children and that it is therefore somehow a "natural" thing that 20% of children should be late in reading or have difficulties with literacy. This is absurd. A figure of 20% with problems in this crucial area of development tells me that the maintained schools in this country are lousy. (Which was of course why I did not send my child to one!) Quite apart from that, without testing the reading abilities of thousands of autonomously educated children, we cannot really compare their reading with those in state schools.
All of the above strikes me as a very good argument in favour of the large scale testing of autonomously educated children in this country. This way, we would be able to find out what is really going on. A lot of home educating families seemed to be very pleased with the DCSF select committee's report on Graham Badman's report. I hope that they would agree with what the committee said in para. 121, "We call on the Department to fund research into the outcomes of autonomous education among a fully representative sample of home educating families." Now that would really be interesting....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It would be VERY interesting. I would be interested in the results. But it won't happen because nobody wants their children to take part, and those that do probably have children who are good readers.
ReplyDeleteIf there was a history of acceptance and non hostility towards HE'ers, they might stand a chance of doing this kind of research, but the way things stand, it wouldn't work.
It comes down to the question of who decides what and how children should learn, and whether and how and when they should be tested, and by whom?
ReplyDeleteIt's a power struggle, the territory being 'children'. I'm on the side of the parents myself: first because I am one, and second because parents make decisions for children based on love and governments make them based on money.
Simplistic, but true.
What you appear to be saying is that if an academic, affiliated to a respectable higher education institution, produces findings from research that indicate that home-educated children learn to read on average significantly later than school-educated children, and is not openly critical of such a phenomenon, they must be a 'sympathetic type'.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why it is so essential to learn to read as early as possible. I recognise that reading is a very important and useful skill; I would not want any child to be without it. But children are perfectly capable of learning without reading, and I do feel some sympathy with the Edwardians who had concerns about the numbers of people who used this skill primarily to consume more penny dreadfuls than could possibly be good for them.
'Good' teaching surely uses multi-sensory, multi-media approaches to learning that mean that all children, regardless of their weaknesses, can access the information they need. Being able to read is just one element in the set of skills that help children to become competent adults. Does learning to read at three, seven, nine or even 14 make a significant difference to one's adult life, except in school where it is a problem largely because the curriculum 'requires' it?
Were Thomas and Rothermel "believers" before beginning their research? I had thought not, that they became believers as a result of their obsevations. Perhaps I have not remembered that correctly.
ReplyDeleteIt would be extremely useful to have good, slam-dunk research on which learning methods are most effective in the home context, wouldn't it?
However, as experts are still arguing over the best methods to use in schools, even after probably millions of pounds being poured down that drain, it's unlikely to matter much even if such research existed in relation to HE.
There would still be hardliners on either side who refused to accept the research.
If a large-scale, well-conducted piece of research came out proving AE to be highly effective, I can't for one minute believe that you would slink into a corner admitting defeat, Simon!
And if a similar piece of research came out condemning AE, its practitioners would be just as unlikely to dismiss their own personal experiences, which have a powerful persuasive effect.
It could be 50 years and 100 research papers before the matter even began to be settled.
Too late for any of US to be able to say, 'Told you so!' :-)
Mrs Anon
Tell me suzieg, whos is this "academic, affiliated to a respectable higher education institution". Please tell me that this is not a coded reference to Paual Rothermel? I did not say that it was essential to learn to read early. In my previous post I mentioned in passing that autonomously learning children seem to read later and somebody asked for the evidence. this post has been an attempt to look at that evidence. I make no comment upon whether it is desirable to read early; only whether or not children who are not taught learn later than those who are.
ReplyDeleteAs usual Mrs. Anon., you make some highly pertinant points. I would still like to see the research done though. As for the previus attitudes to home education of Rothermel and Thomas, Paula Rothermel had a certain attitude towards school. i can't say for Alan Thomas, but I have an idea that he was favourably disposed towards the idea. For one thing, I can't imagine autonomous educators allowing sceptics into their homes and opening up in the way that they did to both people.
ReplyDeleteSimon - firstly I would ask you to recognise that your use of "late" is quite insulting to many parents. Many parents believe 8 or 9 to not be "late" but normal! And, guess what, without research who's to say what IS normal? (Compare anthropological research into breastfeeding where it is now widely acknowledged that although unusual it is biologically quite normal to breastfeed a human infant to 4 yrs old and beyond. I can hear people reading this going "yuck!" for exactly the same reason you might call learning to read at 8 "late" - it is outside of their understanding or experience)
ReplyDeleteSo as for research - reading shouldn't be researched by a psychologist but a literacy expert. Luckily I actually have one up my sleeve (A senior lecturer in literacy from a teacher training establishment - he is in overall charge of training over 100 teachers every year in the North West and is a consultant to a London University too). He interested in doing research, of a longitudinal nature, with home educated children. He will be free to start in about 18 months (he's currently writing a book) and all we require is some funding. There will be no "testing" but there will be discussion in this research with both parents and children. One does not need "testing" to look at literacy!!!!
Also researchers should be impartial, not biased either for or against. Alan Thomas was highly professional......as was Harriet. I am one of the mothers in the second book.
Incidentally my own son learned to read at 8.5 with Pokemon on the GameBoy, a very common phenomenon amongst EHE boys. At just 13 he now reads Shakespeare for pleasure and UNDERSTANDS it.
I learned to read at 3 and did not understand Shakespeare at 13.
Paula Rothermel is affiliated to Durham, Alan Thomas to the Institute of Education; both are widely respected institutions. What would persuade you that research was not conducted by 'sympathetic types'?
ReplyDelete"I did not say that it was essential to learn to read early." No, but you did say “a figure of 20% with problems in this crucial area of development tells me that the maintained schools in this country are lousy.” The implication being presumably that reading ‘late’ is a bad thing.
Simon, can you explain why you think later than average reading is a problem for home educated children? I'd also like to know where you got the idea that Alan Thomas was favourably disposed towards AE before he began his research.
ReplyDelete"In the section on late reading, he identifies thirteen out of the twenty six parents as being parents of late readers. This is 50%."
ReplyDeleteWas this 50% of the children or just 50% of the families who may have had early readers as well as well as late readers? Makes a big difference. I haven't read the book you mention but in his earlier book looking at 100 families (and, I think, over 200 children) the late reading percentage was 20%.
"It is suggested that this is also the figure among autonomously educated children and that it is therefore somehow a "natural" thing that 20% of children should be late in reading or have difficulties with literacy. This is absurd."
ReplyDeleteNot natural to have difficulties, but possibly natural for these children to be late readers. The late readers Thomas mentions had absolutely no difficulty with learning to read once they started and caught up quickly, spending much less time on learning to read than those who learnt earlier. Why do you see learning to read late by choice as a difficulty with literacy?
Simon: What do you mean by Paula Rothermel's "certain attitude towards school"?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, this book inovlved twenty six parents with seventy seven children between them.
ReplyDeleteAlison, I don't see how talking of late readers can be insulting to anybody! (You are, I suppose, No. 23 in Thomas' book, the mother of a son and a daughter who is eight years younger than her brother?) Alan Thomas himself talks about late reading, although he usually puts quotation marks around the word. Most children read before the age of twelve. A child who does not read before that age is late in reading, of course using Twenty First Century British standards. I rather assumed that this was taken for granted. One of my own daughters was not reliably dry at night until the age of eight. She was late in acquiring night time control and I would hardly be insulted if anybody were to say so! We often talk of language delay and of children being late in the acquisition of expressive language. Would it be insulting to the parent of a three year old who could not speak, to desribe that child as being late in speaking? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteErica, I don't think that I have described late reading as a problem. I observed that many people say that children who are not taught to read tend to be later in acquiring this skill than those who are taught it systematically. Of course I beleive this to be so; it is a matter of common observation that those who are taught something usually pick up before those who are not taught. Whether this is a problem or not is a different question entirely and I have nothing to say on that. The reason should be obvious. It depends upon the environment and circumstances in which the child is growing, whether lack of the ability to read is a problem. In phrasing your question so, you reveal more of your own attitudes to reading than you do of my own!
ReplyDeleteYour conclusions are faulty, suzieg. The reason that I said that a 20% failure rate in teaching literacy suggests to me that maintained schools are lousy, does not at all meam that I regard late reading as a bad thing per se. It simply means that with the enormous emphasis on literacy which is part of modern British schools, that they are failing miserably by their own standards. If they were not attempting to teach children to read so intensively and following instead an autonomous approach, then they would not be failing and I would not describe them as lousy!
ReplyDeleteErica, I have just re-read what I wrote and you are quite right! I did talk of 20% with problems in this crucial area of development. I apologise unreservedly.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you ask what I mean by Paula Rothermel having a certain attitude towards school. Until she revamped her website, she mentioned there that she had left school at fifteen. The leaving age was raised to sixteen in 1972, a few years before Paula Rothermel turned sixteen.
ReplyDeleteJust one moment…
ReplyDeleteIF the 20% of late or poor readers in school populations arises only because the schools are lousy, THEN one could say that the claim that 20% of home-educated children having reading difficulties or being late readers ‘is absurd’.
However, IF 20% of late or poor readers is, in fact, a ‘natural’ rate, THEN the 20% rate in schools is not due to the schools being lousy. I don’t think we have established the cause of late reading or reading difficulties yet, have we?
"Alan Thomas himself talks about late reading, although he usually puts quotation marks around the word. Most children read before the age of twelve."
ReplyDeleteStrange. In Alan Thomas' first study looking at 100 families and 210 children he found a 20% figure for late reads but counted anyone not reading by their 8th birthday as a late reader. Does he use 12 in the second study? Do you know if he particularly looked for late readers for the second book? The increase from 20% out of 210 children in the first book to 50% out of 27 children in the second book must have some kind explanation, especially if the classification of late reading changes from 8 and above to 12 and above! Do you know the figure for non-reading 8+ year olds in school?
Simon. I still want to know what leads you to believe that Alan Thomas was favourably disposed towards AE before he started his research.
ReplyDeleteSimon, you said to me that you don't think you have described late reading as a problem. So why do you later describe late readers as having "problems in this crucial area of development"?
ReplyDeleteOdd about Rothermel. I wonder if she just had a late summer 16th birthday, though? She could easily have left at 15 (after her O Levels). Just as I could say I graduated from my degree course at age 20.
ReplyDeleteLeaving school at that point, after exams, doesn't necessarily indicate an 'attitude', Simon. It could have been because her family expected and needed her to work.
I think you are reading too much into that.
Mrs Anon
Yes, my other half left school at Easter aged 15, without taking exams, mainly because they had been offered a job and at the time unemployment was very high (bird in the hand and all that), not because they had a 'certain attitude' towards school. They would still have been 15 if they had left after exams though.
ReplyDeleteActually Mrs. Anon, I know something about this, but it is as a result of personal exchanges. I mentioned the leaving school at fifteen thing because it was in the public domain and therefore available for anybody to see. Paula Rothermel began her research with a cerain view of schools and home education. This is why she was welcomed into the homes of home educating parents.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, when I talked about Alan Thomas and then began a new sentence by saying, "Most children read by the age of twelve", those are two separate things. Most children do read by the age of twelve in this country and it is not relevant whether Alan Thomas or you or I think that this is s good thing or a bad one. It is how things are! It may not matter, but the fact remains that most people do read before they are twelve.
ReplyDeleteErica, I mentioned the figure of 20% above in the context of figures relating to children at school who do not reach the required level in literacy. There is a great difference between 20% of children who are being intensively taught reading and then fail to read and 20% of children who may not be being taught to read and then fail to read. In the first case, I think that there is a problem, because most children pick up reading pretty easily once they are taught effectively. In the second case, there is not really a problem, because if children are not being taught something systematically, then of course they will be less likely to pick it up at a certain age. The two cases are quite different.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether Alan Thomas was sympathetic to home education before the research, I said above that I didn't really know. I strongly suspect this to be so, partly because I cannot imagine a load of home educating parents opening up their homes to anybody who was sceptical or hostile to the idea of home education.
"nonymous, when I talked about Alan Thomas and then began a new sentence by saying, "Most children read by the age of twelve", those are two separate things. Most children do read by the age of twelve in this country and it is not relevant whether Alan Thomas or you or I think that this is s good thing or a bad one. It is how things are!"
ReplyDeleteOh that's fine. It's just you mentioned Alan Thomas talking about late readers, then that most children read before the age of twelve and then say "A child who does not read before that age is late in reading, of course using Twenty First Century British standards", so you can maybe see why I gained the impression that Alan Thomas, you or someone else had set the age of 'late' reading at 12. I would have thought that most children are reading by 8.
Does Alan Thomas' give any explanation for the doubling of late reading statistics in his second, much smaller, study?
"As to whether Alan Thomas was sympathetic to home education before the research, I said above that I didn't really know. I strongly suspect this to be so, partly because I cannot imagine a load of home educating parents opening up their homes to anybody who was sceptical or hostile to the idea of home education."
ReplyDeleteI've heard him talk and he claims to have been highly sceptical.
Anonymous, I too would say that most children would be reading by eight. I used twelve as an age, so that there could be no doubt that by this age most children would be reading. Alan Thomas says of the age at which the children in his study began reading, "many were spread out in the seven to twelve age range and a few were even older than this." From that, I did rather deduce that he thought twelve to be a significant age in some way.
ReplyDelete"From that, I did rather deduce that he thought twelve to be a significant age in some way."
ReplyDeleteIn Educating Children at Home he states that he was surprised at the number of children who learned to read 'late', even as late as 10 or 11 years of age. However, these children soon caught up with and passed the reading level commensurate with their ages, which suggests that all the 'late' readers he saw were reading to the correct age by about 12. Maybe this is why he sees 12 as a significant age? Maybe the two books need to be read to see the progression and sources of his ideas about reading?
He concludes the section on late reading with:
"What these home educated children are telling us is that the age at which they learn to read, within certain limits, may not matter. As long as children have the necessary pre-reading information processing skills, and these are crucial, we should not be too concerned about when they start reading. The trouble is that this does not fit in with school organizational requirements. But the cost, in school, may be more reading failures than necessary and certainly a lessening in the enjoyment of reading as children grow older.
To sum up, being 'late' in learning to read does not, as would be expected, appear to retard general intellectual progress, affect self-esteem or detract from eventual enjoyment of reading. (then quotes a parent's reflections on their son's late start in reading)."
"I've heard him talk and he claims to have been highly sceptical."
ReplyDeleteLooking at his book, Educating Children at Home, his interest in HE developed from his interest in individualised learning and attempts to achieve it in schools (he mentions that the value of this has been a philosophical conviction that goes back more than 2000 years and was endorsed by Rousseau, Dewey, the Child Study Movement and the Plowden Report). He describes staying with a family for a week, his first encounter with a home educating family. He states, "these children certainly were learning, though obviously not through the kind of organized individualized teaching I had expected to see". So I think he had expected to see a 'school at home', one-to-one, individualised but parent organised approach and was surprised by the lack of structure and the amount of learning that took place through conversation, experience and informal learning.
The beauty of home educating, is that you follow the child's abilities. If you discover that your little darling is a genius at 3 , then you will obviously follow her/his lead and make the best of her/his learning capabilities. If on the other hand, your child takes longer to understand the mechanism of reading, then so be it, you will not force her/him, not punish, not bully (but it could happen in school) but you will take the time they need to learn and understand, which they would not necessarily do in school. I think testing the homeschooled children on a regular basis is not the answer, but testing them at landmarks,to compare with their school educated peers, then, why not? whether we home educate or we send our children to school, comes a time when the two methods should reach nearly the same level of education. For example, reading. By the age of eight, a child should be reading more or less fluently. Now, if a parent notices that her child is not reading fluently, then she should make a note of what she has noticed, and look at other home educators in her area to help her. Maybe it is her method, maybe it is the child. There is no blame to be laid on either, on or the method. But if a child cannot read at all by the age of 9,and there is no special needs involved, then surely, someone from Education has the right to ask some questions ?
ReplyDeletebut these Educational officers should be trained and briefed on the philosophy of home schooling. CHildren are different, parents are different and methods of teaching are different. So, testing children at 5, no, it would not work and it would penalise home educators. But around 8 or 9, what would be the problem? and if really, there was a lack of education, then it would not be too late to remedy. My two cents on the subject, of course, I will agree that you can disagree...
Anisah
i forgot to add that where I come from, children officially start to learn how to read at 6 or just a little before and are ''fully fluent'' by eight. And I mean fluent. I was surprised to learn about the 12 year old landmark to be fluent in reading. To me, it seems late indeed (just because I am not used to it.)
ReplyDeleteAnisah
This is interesting, Anisah. Where do you come from? I agree with you that it should be expected that children are fully fluent in reading at eight, but in this country we have begun to have low expectations of our children. i don't think a child would need to be a genius to be reading at three; just taught effectively.
ReplyDeleteWhy 'should' they be reading fluently by eight? I agree that a child who has been taught to read for 4 years should be able to read, but why start so early if it's not necessary for their education? Mine learnt to read fluently in about 6 months at age 12 (had a reading age of 16 at age 14 according to a test at school) and wasted far less time on learning to read than those who struggled to learn whilst younger.
ReplyDelete