There is, among home educators in this country, a mythic narrative which supposedly explains the origin of their chosen way of life. It goes something like this. Before the 1970s, hardly anybody in Britain educated their children at home. Around the middle of that decade half a dozen or so parents, who were determined at all costs not to send their children to school, got together and formed Education Otherwise; a group which would fight to establish home education as an accepted right for parents. There was stern opposition from some reactionary forces in local authorities. This led to the persecution of some of these parents; Iris Harrison, for instance. Never the less, these brave pioneers persevered and now home education is an option available for all parents. We owe those people a great debt for their struggle. This roughly is the story of home education’s beginning in Britain; as put about by home educating organisations and widely accepted by many parents.
There are several things about the above legend which make one a little uneasy; not the least of which is that it is a pack of nonsense from beginning to end. That is not the only problem, although it is certainly a serious one! I hope to explore the difficulties that this myth has created, but it will take several posts. Today, I want to look briefly at home education as it features in children’s literature of 20th century Britain. This might give us some idea of how unremarkable home education has been in this country, as far back as one looks. Far from being a radical movement, challenging the established order; home education could almost be regarded as being a part of the established order, from time out of mind.
Before looking at how home education crops up in 20th century books, it is worth looking back a little further and noting that home education is mentioned frequently in 19th century novels and that the practice at that time was viewed as entirely normal and respectable. To give just two examples, all the Bennet sisters in Pride and Prejudice were educated at home and home education makes an appearance in several of Dickens’ books. The home education by their father of Louisa and Tom Gradgrind is integral to the plot of Hard Times.
Moving on now to the 20th century; by which time universal schooling had become the accepted norm, home education was still seen as being quite unremarkable; even by ordinary families. In The Railway Children, written by E. Nesbit published in 1905, none of the children attend school. This is seen as hardly worth mentioning; it is certainly not a plot device. It is just that quite a few children at that time were taught at home and the author describes the life of just such a family. Moving on a few years to Ballet Shoes by Noel Streatfield, which was published in 1936, we see another example of home education. The three Fossil children live with their guardian , Sylvia and her old nanny. For a time, Sylvia stops sending the children to school and attempts to educate them herself. This does not work very well and so she engages tutors. Just as in The Railway Children, there is no suggestion that this is in any way an unusual course of events; it is presented as simply another incident in the lives of the children. These are not wealthy or important families.
A number of home educated children appear in the William stories by Richmal Crompton, but it is in Enid Blyton’s books that home education is referred to regularly as being something which happened throughout the 1940s, without anybody seeing anything odd or unusual about it. The protagonist of The Naughtiest Girl in the School, 1940, is first met at the age of twelve. When we encounter her, she has always been educated at home. In First Term at Malory Towers, 1946, Gwendoline Mary Lacey is another twelve year-old who has never been to school.
That home education appears in so many children’s books of this period, leads us to suppose that it was a pretty common practice not to send children to school; educating them at home for at least part of their childhood. The idea that home education was somehow freakish and out of the ordinary, does not really stand up. I have explained on here several times in recent months that home education was not at all frowned upon by local authorities; right up to the early 1970s. I know this to be true, apart from anything else, by personal experience. And yet something happened during the 70s to bring about a state of confrontation between local authorities and some parents who did not send their children to school. This was nothing to do with home education as such, and I will look in my next post at just what went wrong with the situation and how home education became transformed form a normal, every day activity into something controversial which generated tension between parents and local authorities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"it is worth looking back a little further and noting that home education is mentioned frequently in 19th century novels and that the practice at that time was viewed as entirely normal and respectable."
You've clearly changed your views since you wrote,
"The current law on home education is based upon the form of words contained in the 1944 education Act. This act was passed at a time when home education was virtually unheard of in this country. That is to say home education of children by their own parents. "
Nice to know that you can change you mind about some things!
Hansard also shows that home education was commonplace and that Local Authorities lied about the law even then.
July 1st 1875
Mr Sandford describes the notices sent to parents when children failed to attend school:
"These notices were to the following effect:— "Take notice that you have been guilty of a breach of the law in that you have neglected to send your child to an efficient school, whereby you have rendered yourself liable to be apprehended and brought before a magistrate." A child might be receiving efficient instruction at home from its parents, in which case the latter would certainly not be liable to proceedings."
And these quotes date from 1918,
"If a parent comes before a judicial body and says, "It is quite true I do not send my child to school at all. I do not wish to send him to school. I do not approve of the influences to which he may be subjected when at school." The parent has a right to say that. I think he has a right to say, "I will not send my son to learn with a number of other boys. I prefer that he should be subjected entirely to home influences." He may give evidence that he and his wife, or persons whom he employs, are quite competent to give a good education at home."
""I think that all who have taken an interest in the Debate would agree that the power of the parent to give home education, or to send the child abroad, or do things of that kind must equally be safeguarded. And our great difficulty with regard to this Clause is that it is much too wholesale and wide sweeping. Some of the most eminent men now living have been educated entirely at home, and it is a quite conceivable use of these powers to hold that that is not efficient instruction and to force the child into the elementary school. I do not think that that would meet with the approval either of this House or of the country generally."
This speaker appears to suggest that compulsion has negatively affected the working classes aspirations for the education of their children.
"Compulsory education is, no doubt, a good thing to meet a neglectful part of society, but those who introduced compulsory education in the Act of 1870, with which my first acquaintance with educational administration began, always felt that compulsory education would best prove its success by the fact that in a few years it would show itself to be unnecessary. I am very sorry indeed, looking back upon nearly fifty years now, that that has not been the case, and that the pressure which seems to increase in this House to make more and more stringent rules with regard to obligations has not increased the anxiety, the ambition, and the personal interest of parents, but has diminished it, and it is just as well we should recognise it. Human nature is a very cantankerous and difficult subject, and very often things we are quite ready to do when we are left to ourselves, as soon as they are made obligatory we begin to kick against them. Compulsory and obligatory education was, no doubt, necessary for neglectful parents. In my own country of Scotland, except for the criminal classes, there was not a parent who was not proud to have his child educated. That has rather died out than increased under compulsory education, and now you are giving in this Clause a new and very serious turn to the screw."
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I have explained on here several times in recent months that home education was not at all frowned upon by local authorities; right up to the early 1970s. I know this to be true, apart from anything else, by personal experience. And yet something happened during the 70s to bring about a state of confrontation between local authorities and some parents who did not send their children to school."
I suspect the rise of the Nanny State had some effect. One of the first usages of the term came in 1965 in an article by British MP Iain Macleod in The Spectator.
'There is, among home educators in this country, a mythic narrative which supposedly explains the origin of their chosen way of life.'
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have for this, please?
"it is worth looking back a little further and noting that home education is mentioned frequently in 19th century novels and that the practice at that time was viewed as entirely normal and respectable."
ReplyDeleteYou've clearly changed your views since you wrote,
"The current law on home education is based upon the form of words contained in the 1944 education Act. This act was passed at a time when home education was virtually unheard of in this country. That is to say home education of children by their own parents. "
Perhaps in the 19th Century children educated at home were looked after and taught by nannies or governesses and parents educating their own children was not common? It could be that parents educating their children was a post 1944 happening. Therefore both paragraphs could be correct.
That was certainly Simon's view when he wrote his original comment, but the quotes from Hansard specifically mention parents educating their children from as early as 1875. There are more quotes in this old discussion with links to Hansard if you are interested, http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/statute-and-case-law-important.html
DeleteThe two home-educated Enid Blyton characters are both baddies, though, and horribly spoiled, perhaps suggesting a stigma around home ed even then.
ReplyDeleteOr alternatively, it's an early example of 'British baddy in American film' syndrome, where you can't have an American baddy so you have to choose someone else.
DeleteSomeone writing school stories is hardly likely to want a home educated character to be a paragon of virtue, are they? While the Railway Children and Ballet Shoes probably represent something closer to reality. My understanding was that it was quite common to be taught at home till 10 or 11, then sent to boarding school, which made perfect sense if living in a rural area with poor transport links and quite possibly as a 'struggling but aspiring' middle class.
Which resonates with today, where many home edders are doing it because they feel 4 is too young, or because the primary school that has a place free isn't a good fit with their child.
Anne
'My understanding was that it was quite common to be taught at home till 10 or 11, then sent to boarding school,'
DeleteThis is absolutely true.
"That home education appears in so many children’s books of this period, leads us to suppose that it was a pretty common practice not to send children to school; educating them at home for at least part of their childhood. The idea that home education was somehow freakish and out of the ordinary, does not really stand up."
ReplyDeleteYour argument is flawed. Here are some other things that were also common in literature of that period, but which are, these days, considered somewhat freakish if not completely wrong:
* First cousin marriage
* Corporate punishment in schools
* Women's suffrage
Attitudes changed, which is the only thing that your literary examples prove. Just as these days it's hard to believe that there was a time when women weren't allowed to vote, it also, to some, seems outlandish that so many children were educated at home.
I don't know whether the narrative you criticise is mythical or not, but I don't think that your argument in this article is a very strong one either!
Elizabeth
I meant, course, women's lack of suffrage!
DeleteElizabeth