I am a great enthusiast for home education. I take any and every opportunity to talk about it and defend it and I get very irritated when people display ignorance about it by, for example, claiming that one cannot learn chemistry at home or that socialisation would be a problem. I would like home education to be regarded by everybody as being at least as effective as school. The only way that the educational establishment are likely to accept this is by being provided with plenty of solid evidence.
School has become so ingrained into our culture that for most people it is synonymous with learning. No school = no learning, is how many people think. I have a horrible suspicion that this mindset might not be uncommon in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. It is certainly prevalent among many teachers and local authority officers. I would very much like to see this crazy idea proved wrong. Now of course, I know perfectly well that home education can be an astonishingly efficient way of teaching. I know this for one thing because of my own daughter's educational attainment. Still, that's only one child. Maybe she's some sort of geek who would have flourished academically anywhere? One child does not prove anything. The way to show that home education is working and can be a viable alternative for school is to look at a lot of children and see how well they do in this educational setting.
This is precisely what the Department for Children, Schools and Families are hoping to do and yet there are already murmurings of discontent about the idea among home educators. This is very strange. Home educators are quite happy to quote from various research, both in this country and the USA. They are also ready to talk about the achievements of home educated young people who have gained places at Oxford or Cambridge. It is quite possible of course that such academic outcomes are quite common among home educated children. It is equally possible that they are vanishingly rare. We simply don't know. We have a pretty good idea of how effective schools are. We know that independent schools usually give better results than maintained schools. We have a good idea of how effective one to one tutoring is and various other aspects of education. By and large, when it comes to home education, we don't have a clue as to how effective it is. I for one am not satisfied with this situation.
The study currently being arranged by the DCSF will be a longitudinal one. This means that instead of just examining a cross section of home educated children at a certain point, perhaps after their GCSEs, it will look at their lives and achievements at intervals. This way it will be possible to see what progress they make, whether it is faster than those children at school or slower, whether it results in more GCSEs or fewer, things like that. I can see only good coming from such a study. Perhaps those who stand to gain most from such a study are autonomous educators. There is, in educational circles, a good deal of scepticism about the advantages of autonomous education. Indeed, I share these misgivings. I am however quite prepared to be proved wrong. This will be the perfect opportunity for autonomous education to be examined and possibly proved to be at least as effective as any other pedagogical technique. There has not been any proper and rigorous research of this sort, which will compare and contrast different methods of home education and then track the children over the course of years. My own feeling is that this will be a triumphant vindication of home education.
As I said, home educating parents are quite willing to cite research which apparently shows home education to be an effective means of teaching a child. Now the chance is being presented to take part in a modern and up to date study which will look closely at the whole business. This is exciting and it is to be hoped that parents will take the opportunity to show that home education is as good as and probably better than schooling. When I posted on this a couple of days ago, two objections were raised. one was that it was bad timing and the other was that the DCSF did not have a good record at this sort of thing. When York Consulting carried out some research on home education for the DCSF in 2006, the result was the the 2007 Guidelines. These were very favourable to home educators, so favourable in fact that many local authorities were livid with rage. The Guidelines emphasised the lack of duties and powers of the local authorities. That being so, there is no reason to think that something good will not emerge from the projected pilot research.
Graham Badman and others, myself included, have criticised much of the existing research on home education. If the DCSF carry out a study and this finds that home education is a brilliantly successful way of educating children, I can see that as being only a good thing.
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
simon says If the DCSF carry out a study and this finds that home education is a brilliantly successful way of educating children, I can see that as being only a good thing
ReplyDeleteBut we know that the DCSf do not want to find home educating as being successful so who ever does this study will give the sort of outcome the DCSF want like Badman was told!(he was paid money so had to please who paid him!)
Who going to take part in this study Julie maybe and her group? cos she does it the right way? i cant see many home educators taking not after being told we abuse our children and are BNP members!
DfES Objective Close the gap in educational achievement for children from disadvantaged backgrounds
ReplyDeleteThats what it say on the DCSF web page about this so called research!
Well depending on results maybe they intend to recommend HE to all children from disadvantaged backgrounds.After all in the USA children from this socio-economic group do best when compared to the same group in school. Also what if they paid the parents a means tested 'wage' - the unemployment figures would drop!
ReplyDeleteSeriously though...
I would ask my daughter if she would like to take part in this study (despite the bad timing).
I can however think of a few more 'problems' which need addressing before I would consent to her participation
Firstly I reckon most autonomous educators are not arm in arm with their LA- only those who are 'known' will be able to participate in this study. Therefore they will be under represented.It may end up cementing the view that there is no proof AE works because the number are too small-my impression is from talking to LAs and my own investigations that autonomous educators are perhaps about 10% of the 'registered' population. Suffice it to say that many autonomous educators would not agree to participate due to current climate and mistrust so even if 50% did volunteer, a hopeful figure at best, there may only be a thousand children to follow in this category.
At least all they can say currently is there are no acceptable studies. The possible results put me in mind of the results of the Hannah Breech trail which put an end to breech babies being born vaginally in the Western world. (if anyone asks I can explain this later).
Secondly, the study assumes a child who is HE remains HE. My DD is considering school again and if she attends until she is old enough to go to college she will have spent 50% of her educational setting in school and 50% HE- how will they categorise her? I know that if she does minimal curriculum work (4 hours a week) in science and maths she moves three times as fast as the curriculum allows in school but I suspect that only those who are continually HE'd will be eligible to participate.
Thirdly, Even when this study is complete they will still 'not know what they do not know' - i.e. they can still claim that the people who choose not to be known to the local authority are an unknown variable-so even if the results show that AE works just as well it could be claimed that the 'others' may be the 'bad' examples of AE.
Fourth issue- if they track until age 16 only , they will probably find most HE young people are still studying- I would want assurances that they are not counted as NEET just because they do not have 5 GCSE's at this point- although if only 50% of school children reach 5 GCSE's by 16 this may not be an issue.
As I see it, as long as the DCSF use language which implies n institutional bias (see above terms of reference) they will not get people on board - a new government and a new leaf are needed first.
Forgot- could someone who was more involved in the 2006-7 process please comment on how much influence the York study had on the 2007 guidelines?
ReplyDeleteTania,
ReplyDeleteWe were a family who were interviewed by someone for the York Consultancy research. The only answer I can really give is that I don't know- the impression I got was that most Heers in the first interviews (they did do a second round of more detailed stuff on a few) answered (like we did) that we were happy with the level of support etc offered and didn't need any more LA input. They then seem to conclude that everyone was happy and so no changes were needed.
( I actually think that were they to ask the same thing now, they might get a different answer - I will expand more later- and also again the research was undertaken amongst an atypical group of home educators - self selecting or volunteered by the LA- but that is another issue!)
I cannot find the DCSF info on this-all links so far have a blank page- have they decided to take it down and bury it?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?projectId=15945&keyword=home%20education&keywordlist1=0&keywordlist2=0&keywordlist3=0&andor=or&type=1&resultspage=1
I thought so they talked to Julie cos she does it the right way? did Hampshire LA put your name forward Julie?
ReplyDeletetania says Also what if they paid the parents a means tested 'wage' - the unemployment figures would drop!
And pigs will fly!
Tania says intend to recommend HE to all children from disadvantaged backgrounds
i dont think they do that they making out all home educators are from Disadvantaged backgrounds
anonymous...maybe you missed the adage -'seriously though' - this is definitely a pig flying scenario and was thoroughly tongue in cheek.
ReplyDeletetania says a new government and a new leaf are needed first.
ReplyDeleteyes i agree with that Tania and Andrew well said lets hope we get one and with any luck Balls could lose his seat! to BNP! now that would be funny! Balls is quite worried about this it was in daliy Mail that he is facing very strong challenge from them!
Blimey I would not find that funny AT ALL.
ReplyDelete'I thought so they talked to Julie cos she does it the right way? did Hampshire LA put your name forward Julie?'
ReplyDeletePlease stop harrassing Julie, Peter. It's almost every day now that you make some snide comment about her.
Mrs Anon
Tania Blimey I would not find that funny AT ALL.
ReplyDeleteI would and it would serve old Balls right! for allowing DCSF to say we like the BNP! Balls would have known the DCSF where going to say this about home educators and BNP. we must also remember even if we dont like it that BNP is a legal party!
in the daily mail it said Balls was busy writing stuff on mass immigration jobs for English and the leaflets where put though doors in Yourkshire! A number of people in Yorkshire had come forward to say he never bothered before about mass immigration or Jobs for English is it because he is now facing this strong challenge from BNP?
did Hampshire LA put your name forward Julie?'
ReplyDeletePlease stop harrassing Julie, Peter. It's almost every day now that you make some snide comment about her.
It is a simple question did Hampshire LA put Julie name forward? and why? and who else was put forward in Hampshire what was the process for this? was it as i suspect only people put forward where those that do home education the way Hampshire want it done?
this will be the same with the DCSF study? pick people it knows/hopes will give DCSF the answers it wants? i dont think Simon would want this?
"there are already murmurings of discontent about the idea among home educators. This is very strange."
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. We've been insulted, vilified and harrassed by the DCSF. They have not attempted to co-operate with us. Our views have been dismissed out of hand for one spurious reason after another; as soon as one lie is exposed they think of another. They clearly have very narrow-minded and inflexible beliefs about the nature of education.
We don't trust them. What's so strange about that?
I do not think Simon is finding any of this 'strange'. Nor is he 'stunned', 'surprised' or 'shocked' or any other superlative that he uses in his blogs in order to play devils advocate and elicit views.
ReplyDeleteHowever what I find ironic is the polarisation of views and in particular the language used which brings us all to stalemate- please please note I am not saying I agree with the DCSF- not by a long shot , I am just pointing out the similarities !
Shut your eyes and imagine Ed Balls, Diane, Johnson, Baroness Deech and Badman all in one private room discussing what to do about this entire debacle......pretend , if you must it is a nightmare from which you will soon wake .... ....now....... visualise Ed balls saying the following......
''We've been insulted, vilified and harrassed by the home educators . They have not attempted to co-operate with us. Our views have been dismissed out of hand for one spurious reason after another; as soon as one lie is exposed they think of another. They clearly have very narrow-minded and inflexible beliefs about the nature of education.
We don't trust them.''
Lets agree that one side is right and one side is wrong...or lets agree that neither side is entirely correct......... to me it is largely irrelevant ...those with the power usually 'win' and I have grown weary with the constant indignation...I want to concentrate on what CAN be done to prevent imminent disaster as this tank comes straight towards the HE community. I do not wish to be a martyr nor a traitor....is anyone with me?
Julie said,
ReplyDelete"They have not attempted to co-operate with us. "
I thought that plenty of people co-operated with the Badman enquiry. He was invited to lots of HE meetings and attended some and plenty of people spoke and corresponded with him. It only went wrong once it became clear that he ignored anything that didn't agree with their pre-planned agenda.
For instance, the terms of reference for the review included:
"The review will assess the effectiveness of current arrangements and will, if necessary, make recommendations for improvements."
Yet very early on in the process Badman made it clear that change was inevitable, well before he had change investigate and assess the effectiveness of the current arrangements or reach conclusions.
"I want to concentrate on what CAN be done to prevent imminent disaster as this tank comes straight towards the HE community."
I'm not sure we can - as you say, those with the power usually win so why would they need to compromise and listen? Plenty of people made valid suggestions in the consultation but they were largely ignored with no attempt to justify their decisions in light of the reasons given for not taking those decisions. What do you suggest people do when every time they try to communicate with the DCSF they are ignored?
"The review will assess the effectiveness of current arrangements and will, if necessary, make recommendations for improvements."
ReplyDeleteAs someone known to my good practice LA , I am not happy with current arrangements' Those who do not live in 'good' practice LAs may have even more reason to want improvements. It is not at all clear how many of the population who choose not to be on their LA list would actually uptake services if there was anything on offer....in short- so much was missed out in the Badman Review that I do not find it useful to use it as a constant term of reference ..i fee that the DCSF did as little as they thought they could get away with in order to make a point..it was a point they have been trying to make for years(look at the history of consultation since 2003) but got no where-of course they enlisted someone to help them make this point- they needed a review.
Some people in the home ed community worked hard to participate but the entire community was not mobilised. I admit personal laissez faire, having only become active in the past 8 months. I think that 'we the HE community ' are coming late to the table ....before now organisations spoke for us but these organisations did not have united nor large membership.
What is missing is a way to solicit the views of everyone who wishes to make their view known. ...from satisfaction with LA, what if any gov. funding/provision would be helpful, how many are AE etc...this is easy to do for the population who is on the LA lists but not impossible for those who chose not be on the lists to have access to the same questions.........
It is obvious many people are displeased at the way gov has approached this but not so obvious how many are in the 'just say no' camp, how many don't really care that much and how many think some improvements could be made .....
Plenty may have co-operated with the Badman enquiry but in the end he probably saw no more than 500 home educators. The majority are silent on the matter- 5 thousand consultation responses out of a minimum 30,000 children ?
Although those who have been active do not have the same opinions about what is the best course of action, a realisation and contemplation that that we in the community who have tried to make our voices heard are in a minority and could not be considered representative. I do not say this to be antagonisitc- only to point out a truth.How do we reach the thousands of families who are silent or are they silent by choice or indifference?
They say a certain percent are being failed: we say that percent is inflated. We say we are not listened to: they say we are a small but loud minority.
There is no way out of this thinking pattern and I can see no good come of it for the HE community.
I really really hope that once the beast at the door is lost in the wash-up that those who are active can come to some understanding of what the next best move is and try to influence it...
Anon said that Julie said,
ReplyDelete"They have not attempted to co-operate with us."
Now I have no idea which anon said this, but I know that I certainly didn't!!
I don't mind being held responisble for that which I did say but not for stuff that I have no record of uttering!
and to answer the suggestion that we may have been surveyed by York Consultancy because Hants put us forward - err, exaactly the opposite - we were contacted by a campaigning organisation working on behalf of home educators and encouraged to take part!
ReplyDelete(Actually we spent our HE years without LA contact at all, so they couldn't have put us forward anyway!)
Julie really did say,
ReplyDelete"Anon said that Julie said,
"They have not attempted to co-operate with us."
Now I have no idea which anon said this, but I know that I certainly didn't!! "
Copious apologies, Julie! That reply should have been addressed to 'Tania and Andrew on Pegasus'.
Shut your eyes and imagine Ed Balls, Diane, Johnson, Baroness Deech and Badman all in one private room discussing what to do about this entire debacle......pretend , if you must it is a nightmare from which you will soon wake .... ....now....... visualise Ed balls saying the following......
ReplyDeleteTania says
''We've been insulted, vilified and harrassed by the home educators . They have not attempted to co-operate with us. Our views have been dismissed out of hand for one spurious reason after another; as soon as one lie is exposed they think of another. They clearly have very narrow-minded and inflexible beliefs about the nature of education.
I dont think you will see Balls/Jonhnson/Deech in same room aying this election is coming and a number of labour seats are going to be lost you may find them not singing from the same hymn sheet indeed they may well turn on each. other! Deech does not have to worry so much she is unelected!
Tania says I want to concentrate on what CAN be done to prevent imminent disaster as this tank comes straight towards the HE community. I do not wish to be a martyr nor a traitor....is anyone with me?
What imminent disaster? i dont see any? what do you mean about being a martyr we home educating how do we come one? by not doing as we are told?i never do as i am told so lets hope they do try and make us a martyr but some how i dont think they will all talk and no action is our LA!
No we not with you sorry if you want to give in thats up to you we wont!
Tania and Andrew said "....now....... visualise Ed balls saying the following......
ReplyDelete''We've been insulted, vilified and harrassed by the home educators . They have not attempted to co-operate with us. Our views have been dismissed out of hand for one spurious reason after another; as soon as one lie is exposed they think of another. They clearly have very narrow-minded and inflexible beliefs about the nature of education.
We don't trust them.''
Unfortunately, the problem is not about perceptions of each other's views. The government's policy toward home education changed significantly after Gordon Brown became PM and put Ed Balls in charge of the ECM agenda. Both of them are economists, both are looking for political advantage and neither are renowned for their people skills. Economics as a discipline regularly falls flat on its face when it comes to predicting human behaviour. They attribute social problems to a poor start in life, ergo, if you can eradicate a poor start in life we will all be a lot better off in every way. The way they are doing this is by rewarding ‘good’ behaviour and punishing ‘bad’ behaviour, an extraordinarily simplistic way to approach complex social problems, many of which are more likely to be due, directly or indirectly, to economic policies.
The very existence of home education is an implicit criticism of state education. I think Balls wants it reined in. A lot of people want it banned, I suspect - hence the repeated references to Germany. If the government was primarily concerned about safeguarding and quality of education for the nation’s children, there are many areas that have needed attention for years that should take a higher priority than home education. The reasons for high staff turnover in social services departments and schools would be a good place to start.
I appreciate your concerns about finding some practical way forward, but I think the government’s approach to EHE is ideological and political, not instrumental - it simply wants to discourage people from choosing to educate their children at home. Studies in propaganda have shown that minority groups can change public opinion by consistently repeating a simple message. I think that's what we have to do. One day the penny will drop.
Julie said...
ReplyDeleteand to answer the suggestion that we may have been surveyed by York Consultancy because Hants put us forward - err, exaactly the opposite - we were contacted by a campaigning organisation working on behalf of home educators and encouraged to take part!
what campaigning group? why was your family picked but not others? Did you put in a good word for Hampshire Council! that yourk consultancy only wanted to hear from those who got in with they LA!
The only way that teachers, EWOs and the Department for Children, Schools and Families are going to accept home education as a workable alternative to school is if there is evidence to back up the claims that it works well. I know it works and so I suspect do all those who come on here. This si not enough though. We need to have proper work carried out by an objective body which will demonstrate its effectiveness. The fact that it is the DCSF which will be commissioning this work does not suggest that it will be biased. Nor does the fact that it is being done under the Close the gap in educational achievement for children from disadvantaged backgrounds plan. It was probably a toss up between this and Independent Schools.
ReplyDeleteNone of the existing research is particularly good and it is high time that some proper work was carried out. this is a great opportunity and I think that home educators would be foolish to boycott this.
>>>>>>>what campaigning group? why was your family picked but not others? Did you put in a good word for Hampshire Council! that yourk consultancy only wanted to hear from those who got in with they LA!<<<<<<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteSHE WASN'T KNOWN TO THE LA. Do keep up.
Mrs Anon
>>>>The only way that teachers, EWOs and the Department for Children, Schools and Families are going to accept home education as a workable alternative to school is if there is evidence to back up the claims that it works well.<<<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteWell, it was accepted by govt Ed Depts(and its changing names) for many years until relatively recently. Teachers couldn't have cared less about it years ago, either. Can't speak for social workers.
Everything changed a couple of years ago. Now what was the significant event of the summer of 2007. Can anyone tell me? Hands up, anyone? You need a clue? He's been described by a member of the House of lords as a boil that needs lancing.
Mrs Anon
PS *I* would never describe anyone like that, obviously.
"Everything changed a couple of years ago. Now what was the significant event of the summer of 2007."
ReplyDelete2007 was also the year the York Consultancy research was published. These are their recommendations based on a survey on 9 LAs and their staff and 18 HE parents:
"Recommendation 1: The DfES should take steps to address the concerns raised by LAs regarding the tension between the legalities surrounding EHE and LA obligations around child welfare. Action should be taken to more effectively define what constitutes an efficient and suitable education for the purposes of LA monitoring.
Recommendation 2: LAs should analyse the reasons why parents are electing to home educate and take steps to address what some parents view as inefficiencies in the school system (such as bullying, special educational needs, standards, choice of school)....
Recommendation 3: Attempts should be made to assess the capacity of LAs to monitor children receiving EHE should numbers continue to rise and tracking systems lead to more effective identification (and thereby increased numbers). Some LAs may lack the resource to cope with increasing numbers."
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB827.pdf
Sound familiar? If this study was the trigger for all that has followed it makes a mockery of evidence based policy. A minute sample (it was only a feasibility study) and obviously self selected.
Susieg.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the governments policy on HE needs to change. I'd consider it a pre-requisite to any further discussion- a committment to eliminate institutional bias.
However after this we can only communicate effectively (both sides ) if we understand each other perceptions of the other's views- not just the other point of view .
This means to recognise that there are for both sides, certain problematic areas.
I think it is unacceptable to dismiss the children who may be being failed because they are a minority- or because I dispute the actual size of that minority or the powers are already there or because the funding 'should' be there or because it is not my problem if the Childrens Act and ECM now poke their noses into family life . It is equally as unacceptable for concerns to be dismissed about current woeful practice in many LAs, lack of access to any funding , lack of accountability /complaints proceedure, and encroachment of public bodies into private life/ possible resulting false positives .
Correct me if I am wrong but in British Columbia there are a similar amount of registered home educators to the Uk- 20,000 and about 2000 who choose not to notify.
90% are registered by choice and 15% of that 90% are autonomous,the other 10% may all be unschoolers Its a shame that there are not some studies done- but because people are happy with the system there , no-one feels the need to do the study .
I am unclear about when or if 'studies' would help- -if the mistrust is overcome would there be a need to do any research.
If the mistrust is not overcome -the research will either be meaningless or will be rendered meaningless due to non participation.
As I say, without proper research and evidence to back up its efficacy, home education is likely to continue to be viewed as a fringe activity by many in the educational establishment. This is a shame, because the home can be an astonishingly effective educational setting. There will be practical and undesirable repercussions for home educators in the future. If the myth persists that home education is not good for children from a purely educational perspective, then there is likely to be a move in the future to restrict it. The way to tackle this is head on by proving that home education is at least as effective as school. This cannot be done without a properly designed study.
ReplyDeletemay I interject here- the comment about the pustulance in the DCSF and boil needing lacing was left open to interpretation- could mean a general atmosphere / attitude which was not favourable to Home Education and not neccessarily referring to Ed balls specifically. I personally interpreted it as the former meaning not the latter and ui was ther ein the room when the comment was made. i agree it is ambiguous, and possibly intentionally so.
ReplyDeleteBalls got nerve to pick on home educators!
ReplyDeleteA boy who died after an asthma attack at a Greater Manchester school died of natural causes contributed to by neglect, an inquest jury ruled.
Valuable time was lost as Sam Linton, 11, was made to sit in a corridor at Offerton High, Stockport, as he struggled to breathe, the jury heard.
His death was significantly contributed to by neglect on an individual and systemic level, the inquest said.
The boy died a few hours later in hospital on 4 December 2007.
His parents have called for stronger implementation of first aid procedures at his school.