I was wondering recently what effect the change in the age of compulsory education will have upon home educating families. From 2015 young people will have to stay in education until the age of eighteen, rather than sixteen. Of course many parents are still claiming Child Benefit from the age of sixteen to eighteen on the grounds that they are still educating their child and that this education does not stop once he reaches sixteen. One wonders whether this will get a little harder in 2015, with proper evidence needed to back up the claim. Of course this increased school leaving age is not due to come into force for a few years yet. It will happen in stages, with the age rising to seventeen in 2013 and then eighteen in 2015. Still, we all know how time flies and this will be upon us before we notice it coming.
The major difference that I can foresee is that we may start to acquire some solid information about the academic attainment of home educated children in this country. At the moment, the results of any GCSEs or IGCSEs taken in the Summer of the academic year that a child turns sixteen, don't become available until August. Since official involvement with home educated children ends on the last Friday in June, the local authority seldom gets to hear these results. Sometimes a home educating parent might take the trouble to contact the EHE Department of the local authority in September, just to let them know how things went, but I have a suspicion that most don't bother! I certainly didn't.
There seems to be a perception among many professionals in the field of education that home educated children take and pass fewer formal examinations than the average child at school. I have no idea at all whether this is true or not, although I would not be at all surprised to find that it was. Of course, as others have pointed out here before, GCSEs are not the be all and end all of education; far from it. Still, it would be interesting to see how home educated children matched up against those at school in this this respect. Mind you, unless the funding to take these qualifications for free, like all other children, is forthcoming, we would have to adjust the statistics accordingly, to take into account the fact that many parents might wish their children to sit GCSEs but are simply unable to afford it. It currently costs around £120/£150 to sit each GCSE in an independent school. In order to take the ten or twelve which are common in schools, a parent might therefore have to shell out getting on for £2000! This is hardly fair, when they have been paying exactly the same taxes as everybody else.
Another difficulty with the school leaving age might be occur if regulations for the monitoring of home education became a little stricter. It is tricky enough as it is for some parents to maintain the, I won't say illusion, perhaps appearance would be a better word, of education as the child grows older. If it is hard to do this with an uncooperative sixteen year old, just imagine trying to get some great eighteen year old to go along with the game and say the necessary things to a local authority officer! For some parents, it hardly bears thinking about.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Rights and duties
I mentioned "rights" yesterday, but without even defining the word! This was a mistake, because it is only by examining what we mean by "rights" that we can see how the concept applies, or not, to home education.
A right is simply an entitlement to have or do something. A few people yesterday sought to muddy the waters somewhat by talking of negative and positive rights, natural rights and so on, but these are the very reddest of herrings. Whether the right is a broad and general one, such as guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or of a narrow and specific nature such as the right to a full time education, makes no difference at all to their essential nature. One or two people thought that I was pulling a fast one by saying that the Children Act 2004 gave children certain rights. They had looked through it and couldn't see any mention at all of "rights". Of course not; the act consists really of duties. This brings us neatly to the crux of the matter.
Rights are always associated with duties. If I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then others must have a duty not to deprive me of my liberty or kill me. If a child has the right to an education, then somebody must have a duty to provide him with it. Duties can create rights. In the Education Act 1996, it nowhere says that children have a right to education; merely that parents have a duty to cause them to receive it. This is how most rights are created in law, by setting out duties. For every right, there are corresponding duties. Of course, this does not always work the other way. It is perfectly possible to have a duty without the duty conferring rights upon anybody.
The greatest error into which many of those discussing home education seem to have fallen is to assume that parents have some sort of "rights" in the case. They do not. I have read of parents talking about their "right" to educate their children at home. Even Graham Badman fell into this error, by claiming that it was somehow necessary to balance the rights of parents against the rights of children. This is the most pernicious nonsense imaginable. I as a parent never had any rights at all in connection with my children. I had instead duties. They had all the rights; I had none at all! Unfair, I know, but that's ethics for you.
The fact that the debate around home education is being sometimes framed in terms of parents' "rights" is a sign of the times. A hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, the language used would have been very different. Both parents and professionals would have been trying to thrash out the question using the idea of duties, rather than shouting about rights. Actually, I was racking my brains last night , trying to come up with a single right which parents have, or should have. I could not think of any. Is there any right which parents have, which readers can think of? A right which carries a corresponding duty in law which others must respect?
Having cleared the ground a little, we find that matters are now a good deal more easy to understand. Children have a right to an education. Parents have a duty to provide them with this education, either by sending them to school or in some other way. More specifically, they must provide a full time education suitable to their child's age and aptitude, having regard for any special educational needs. This does not give parents a "right" to educate their children at home, as I have seen some argue. It rather allows them a bit of leeway in discharging their legal duty. This duty itself can be altered or modified at any time. For instance, the definition of what constitutes a full time education could be precisely stated or a "suitable education" spelt out in detail. If these things were to be done, it would simply add to a parent's duties, not diminish her rights. To expect parents to submit an annual plan of their child's education would not remove any right either. It would instead become a new duty.
As soon as we realise that parents have no specific rights over their children or their children's education, the current debate on home education becomes very simple and easy to understand. As citizens, we enjoy certain rights. The right not to be cast into prison without trial, for instance. As parents, we enjoy no additional rights. Becoming a parent means that we are suddenly landed with a raft of duties and obligations. this is as it should be and of course nobody is compelled to have children and acquire those duties unless they particularly want to! Introducing this spurious notion of parental rights into discussion of home education has served only to upset and confuse people. A number of parents have now become convinced that any new legislation might diddle them out of their rights! Nothing of the sort. All it would do would be to add a few new duties for them to perform. Amidst all the duties which they already have, most will hardly notice a couple of new ones.
A right is simply an entitlement to have or do something. A few people yesterday sought to muddy the waters somewhat by talking of negative and positive rights, natural rights and so on, but these are the very reddest of herrings. Whether the right is a broad and general one, such as guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or of a narrow and specific nature such as the right to a full time education, makes no difference at all to their essential nature. One or two people thought that I was pulling a fast one by saying that the Children Act 2004 gave children certain rights. They had looked through it and couldn't see any mention at all of "rights". Of course not; the act consists really of duties. This brings us neatly to the crux of the matter.
Rights are always associated with duties. If I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then others must have a duty not to deprive me of my liberty or kill me. If a child has the right to an education, then somebody must have a duty to provide him with it. Duties can create rights. In the Education Act 1996, it nowhere says that children have a right to education; merely that parents have a duty to cause them to receive it. This is how most rights are created in law, by setting out duties. For every right, there are corresponding duties. Of course, this does not always work the other way. It is perfectly possible to have a duty without the duty conferring rights upon anybody.
The greatest error into which many of those discussing home education seem to have fallen is to assume that parents have some sort of "rights" in the case. They do not. I have read of parents talking about their "right" to educate their children at home. Even Graham Badman fell into this error, by claiming that it was somehow necessary to balance the rights of parents against the rights of children. This is the most pernicious nonsense imaginable. I as a parent never had any rights at all in connection with my children. I had instead duties. They had all the rights; I had none at all! Unfair, I know, but that's ethics for you.
The fact that the debate around home education is being sometimes framed in terms of parents' "rights" is a sign of the times. A hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, the language used would have been very different. Both parents and professionals would have been trying to thrash out the question using the idea of duties, rather than shouting about rights. Actually, I was racking my brains last night , trying to come up with a single right which parents have, or should have. I could not think of any. Is there any right which parents have, which readers can think of? A right which carries a corresponding duty in law which others must respect?
Having cleared the ground a little, we find that matters are now a good deal more easy to understand. Children have a right to an education. Parents have a duty to provide them with this education, either by sending them to school or in some other way. More specifically, they must provide a full time education suitable to their child's age and aptitude, having regard for any special educational needs. This does not give parents a "right" to educate their children at home, as I have seen some argue. It rather allows them a bit of leeway in discharging their legal duty. This duty itself can be altered or modified at any time. For instance, the definition of what constitutes a full time education could be precisely stated or a "suitable education" spelt out in detail. If these things were to be done, it would simply add to a parent's duties, not diminish her rights. To expect parents to submit an annual plan of their child's education would not remove any right either. It would instead become a new duty.
As soon as we realise that parents have no specific rights over their children or their children's education, the current debate on home education becomes very simple and easy to understand. As citizens, we enjoy certain rights. The right not to be cast into prison without trial, for instance. As parents, we enjoy no additional rights. Becoming a parent means that we are suddenly landed with a raft of duties and obligations. this is as it should be and of course nobody is compelled to have children and acquire those duties unless they particularly want to! Introducing this spurious notion of parental rights into discussion of home education has served only to upset and confuse people. A number of parents have now become convinced that any new legislation might diddle them out of their rights! Nothing of the sort. All it would do would be to add a few new duties for them to perform. Amidst all the duties which they already have, most will hardly notice a couple of new ones.
Monday, 5 April 2010
Duties towards our children
There can be no doubt at all that children in this country have certain rights. That being so, then others must inevitably have corresponding duties to see that children are able to exercise, or at the very least are not prevented from exercising, those rights. Where do these rights come from? My own view is that the Lord has given us these rights and duties and that they are set out clearly in the Bible. Others would argue that only a raving madman would claim to be basing his life upon the myth system of a Bronze Age Bedouin tribe! Perhaps we should adopt a more up-to-date and modern approach, believing that the rights which our children enjoy are those given to them by the law of the land.
What sort of rights do children in this country have? For one, they have a firm right to an education between the ages of five and sixteen. Who has the duty for ensuring that they receive this education? We do, as parents. This is all perfectly clear and straightforward. Do children have any other rights? Well, they have the right to the five outcomes of the Every Child matters document. This is underpinned by the 2004 Children Act. Who has the duty to see that our children have access to these five outcomes? There is no doubt at all about that. The local authority has the duty of seeing that children in their area are getting access to the outcomes of Every Child Matters. The only difference is that in one case the duty devolves upon us as parents and in the other upon the local authority. This is tricky. How did I know whether or not my own daughter was receiving her entitlement to a full time education, suitable to her age and aptitude? That's easy, I knew because I saw her every day and was able to judge her development. Could I have known this without seeing her? Probably not. What about the local authority? They too have a duty towards our children. Can they fulfil their duties towards our children without actually seeing them? Can they judge whether or not our children are healthy, safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and achieving economic wellbeing? It is unlikely that they will be able to establish that children are doing all those things without meeting them, and yet they have a duty in law to see that children in their area actually have access to all those outcomes listed in the Every Child Matters document.
If we accept that our children have a right to an education and that this right comes not from God but from Parliament, then the rights associated with the 2004 Children Act are no less important than the ones conferred by the Education Act 1996, which entitles them to an education. Both lots of rights come from the same source, the only difference being that parents have the duty to ensure that one right is secured and local authorities have the duty to see that the children get the other set of rights.
In short, we as parents are not the only people who have duties towards our children. Nor are the five outcomes of Every Child Matters the only rights which our children have that others have a duty to secure for them. It seems pretty clear that however much we as home educators wish to claim that we alone are responsible for our children and their welfare, this is not the case; either ethically or legally. Others do have a legitimate interest in our children.
Of course, we could of course say that we are only answerable to the Lord for our rights and duties, but this raises another, even greater, problem. Imagine the situation faced by the Canaanite Education Department around 2000 BC. There's Abraham with his son Isaac. They wish to know if the child is receiving a suitable education, but Abraham refuses to discuss the matter. He says that God is giving him the instructions about his child directly; he does not accept any human advice on the matter. Next thing they know, Abraham is up on Mount Moriah with the child tied up and laying on a pile of wood . Abraham says that he is going to cut the child's throat and offer the boy up to the Lord as a sacrifice. It's OK though, it's nobody else's business; the Lord has told him what to do! This would be a pretty unsatisfactory situation even during the Bronze Age. In the Twenty First Century it would be intolerable.
It seems to me an inescapable fact that society has a right to watch over our children to see that they do not come to harm. This is because parents are not always the best judges of what is good for their children. I think that in the case cited above, the Canaanites would have been pretty negligent in allowing Abraham to go ahead with what he evidently saw as a desirable otcome for his young son. It also seems to me that whether we think that our duties towards our children come from God or from Parliament, we must accept that others have a hand in ensuring that our children have access to those rights we which have a duty to secure for them.
What sort of rights do children in this country have? For one, they have a firm right to an education between the ages of five and sixteen. Who has the duty for ensuring that they receive this education? We do, as parents. This is all perfectly clear and straightforward. Do children have any other rights? Well, they have the right to the five outcomes of the Every Child matters document. This is underpinned by the 2004 Children Act. Who has the duty to see that our children have access to these five outcomes? There is no doubt at all about that. The local authority has the duty of seeing that children in their area are getting access to the outcomes of Every Child Matters. The only difference is that in one case the duty devolves upon us as parents and in the other upon the local authority. This is tricky. How did I know whether or not my own daughter was receiving her entitlement to a full time education, suitable to her age and aptitude? That's easy, I knew because I saw her every day and was able to judge her development. Could I have known this without seeing her? Probably not. What about the local authority? They too have a duty towards our children. Can they fulfil their duties towards our children without actually seeing them? Can they judge whether or not our children are healthy, safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and achieving economic wellbeing? It is unlikely that they will be able to establish that children are doing all those things without meeting them, and yet they have a duty in law to see that children in their area actually have access to all those outcomes listed in the Every Child Matters document.
If we accept that our children have a right to an education and that this right comes not from God but from Parliament, then the rights associated with the 2004 Children Act are no less important than the ones conferred by the Education Act 1996, which entitles them to an education. Both lots of rights come from the same source, the only difference being that parents have the duty to ensure that one right is secured and local authorities have the duty to see that the children get the other set of rights.
In short, we as parents are not the only people who have duties towards our children. Nor are the five outcomes of Every Child Matters the only rights which our children have that others have a duty to secure for them. It seems pretty clear that however much we as home educators wish to claim that we alone are responsible for our children and their welfare, this is not the case; either ethically or legally. Others do have a legitimate interest in our children.
Of course, we could of course say that we are only answerable to the Lord for our rights and duties, but this raises another, even greater, problem. Imagine the situation faced by the Canaanite Education Department around 2000 BC. There's Abraham with his son Isaac. They wish to know if the child is receiving a suitable education, but Abraham refuses to discuss the matter. He says that God is giving him the instructions about his child directly; he does not accept any human advice on the matter. Next thing they know, Abraham is up on Mount Moriah with the child tied up and laying on a pile of wood . Abraham says that he is going to cut the child's throat and offer the boy up to the Lord as a sacrifice. It's OK though, it's nobody else's business; the Lord has told him what to do! This would be a pretty unsatisfactory situation even during the Bronze Age. In the Twenty First Century it would be intolerable.
It seems to me an inescapable fact that society has a right to watch over our children to see that they do not come to harm. This is because parents are not always the best judges of what is good for their children. I think that in the case cited above, the Canaanites would have been pretty negligent in allowing Abraham to go ahead with what he evidently saw as a desirable otcome for his young son. It also seems to me that whether we think that our duties towards our children come from God or from Parliament, we must accept that others have a hand in ensuring that our children have access to those rights we which have a duty to secure for them.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
On meaning well
I was very struck yesterday by a comment which somebody posted here:
'Because parents only want what is best for their child, there is never any reason to doubt their motives or doubt their judgment concerning their child's education or well-being.'
This is a fascinating thesis and I wonder how widespread this strange idea is generally among home educators? Let's look a little more closely at this and see what we can make of it.
I am very much inclined to agree with the first part of the statement, that parents only want what is best for their child. I don't know though to what extent , if any, this statement leads logically on to the idea that there can never be any reason to doubt parents judgement concerning their child's well-being. The idea is presumably that because parents want what is best for their children, they will as a matter of course provide it for them. This is a peculiar notion indeed. Using examples from parents whom I have both known and heard of, I want to explore this a little.
Perhaps I should begin with my own child. I certainly wanted what was best for her and to that end raised her as a vegetarian and didn't buy her sweets. This seemed quite sensible to me, but some other parents thought that it was both cruel and neglectful. Cruel, because children like sweets and I did not given them to my daughter and neglectful because many people believe that growing children require meat in order to become healthy and strong. I think that they were mistaken, but already my own idea of what was good for my child had caused others to view me askance. Now I want to think about friends of mine who were strict vegans. Their child really was a bit pale and unhealthy and I have a suspicion that the family diet had something to do with it. I confess I felt a little uneasy at times and believed that his parents were not really feeding him properly.
Now I want to mention a home educating family who we got to know through Education Otherwise. This family never ate any hot food; it was opposed to the mother's principles. The consequence was that her eight year old daughter had never had a hot meal. I honestly found this awful. The child was so shy that I never actually met her. She would always hide upstairs when visitors came and only call over the bannister to her mother.
Next up are some macrobiotic acquaintances, whose diet was very restricted and who periodically ate nothing but brown rice. Their child was kept to the same diet and it showed. She was always going down with coughs and colds and I am sure that she suffered from a vitamin deficiency. All the parents we have seen so far have certainly had their children's welfare at heart and only want what is best for them. In America there have been cases of macrobiotic parents whose children have become seriously ill because of their parents' crank diet. The parents, I am sure, loved their children and wanted what was best for them, but they were mistaken. I am afraid we do have reason to, 'doubt their judgment concerning their child's education or well-being' They were actually following a course of action which harmed their child.
Still on food, we come to a mother who thought that her children were eating too much junk food. She decided that it would be much healthier for her children to eat raw vegetables and a little porridge. She also worried that her children were eating too much and being greedy, so she would serve the food up in one bowl and all the children would have to take small portions from the same bowl. Because they were hungry, some of the kids took more than their fair share, while others got little and ended up losing weight. This mother too wanted what was best for her children, although perhaps she had a strange way of going about things. Her ideas were no different in principle from my vegetarianism or the friends who were macrobiotic fanatics. Her name was Angela Gordon and of course her daughter Khyra ultimately died as a result of the diet which her mother had imposed.
Sometimes, although parents are trying to do what they think is best for their children, their actions will actually be harmful. This is true of diet and it can be equally true of education. We cannot really judge simply by motives and intentions; it is very rare for a parent to set out to harm a child. In the case of somebody like Angela Gordon, we have to ask ourselves to what extent others should have respected her rights as a parent. When she specifically instructed the staff at her children's school that they were not to be allowed second helpings, should the staff have gone along with this? Would it have been right for the state to intervene? Should her 'rights' as a parent have been respected? Would it have been right for the state to make sure that my own daughter was allowed to eat meat? What if I had been giving her nothing but brown rice, would that have been sufficient for the state to take a hand?
The fact that a parent is genuinely trying to do her best for her child does not necessarily mean that her judgement is sound. Some parents hit their children, which I would never have done. Are they wrong? Should the state intervene? There are no clear cut and black and white answers to these questions. I thought that keeping my child out of school and in my company more than in the company of children her own age was a good idea. Others did not. The fact is that there are certainly cases when the state should interfere, but it is horribly difficult to say when this should be. Deciding this is a purely personal matter. However, my purely personal decision might very well be a wrong and ill judged one. This is why we need a little objective and impartial oversight from time to time of our actions as parents.
'Because parents only want what is best for their child, there is never any reason to doubt their motives or doubt their judgment concerning their child's education or well-being.'
This is a fascinating thesis and I wonder how widespread this strange idea is generally among home educators? Let's look a little more closely at this and see what we can make of it.
I am very much inclined to agree with the first part of the statement, that parents only want what is best for their child. I don't know though to what extent , if any, this statement leads logically on to the idea that there can never be any reason to doubt parents judgement concerning their child's well-being. The idea is presumably that because parents want what is best for their children, they will as a matter of course provide it for them. This is a peculiar notion indeed. Using examples from parents whom I have both known and heard of, I want to explore this a little.
Perhaps I should begin with my own child. I certainly wanted what was best for her and to that end raised her as a vegetarian and didn't buy her sweets. This seemed quite sensible to me, but some other parents thought that it was both cruel and neglectful. Cruel, because children like sweets and I did not given them to my daughter and neglectful because many people believe that growing children require meat in order to become healthy and strong. I think that they were mistaken, but already my own idea of what was good for my child had caused others to view me askance. Now I want to think about friends of mine who were strict vegans. Their child really was a bit pale and unhealthy and I have a suspicion that the family diet had something to do with it. I confess I felt a little uneasy at times and believed that his parents were not really feeding him properly.
Now I want to mention a home educating family who we got to know through Education Otherwise. This family never ate any hot food; it was opposed to the mother's principles. The consequence was that her eight year old daughter had never had a hot meal. I honestly found this awful. The child was so shy that I never actually met her. She would always hide upstairs when visitors came and only call over the bannister to her mother.
Next up are some macrobiotic acquaintances, whose diet was very restricted and who periodically ate nothing but brown rice. Their child was kept to the same diet and it showed. She was always going down with coughs and colds and I am sure that she suffered from a vitamin deficiency. All the parents we have seen so far have certainly had their children's welfare at heart and only want what is best for them. In America there have been cases of macrobiotic parents whose children have become seriously ill because of their parents' crank diet. The parents, I am sure, loved their children and wanted what was best for them, but they were mistaken. I am afraid we do have reason to, 'doubt their judgment concerning their child's education or well-being' They were actually following a course of action which harmed their child.
Still on food, we come to a mother who thought that her children were eating too much junk food. She decided that it would be much healthier for her children to eat raw vegetables and a little porridge. She also worried that her children were eating too much and being greedy, so she would serve the food up in one bowl and all the children would have to take small portions from the same bowl. Because they were hungry, some of the kids took more than their fair share, while others got little and ended up losing weight. This mother too wanted what was best for her children, although perhaps she had a strange way of going about things. Her ideas were no different in principle from my vegetarianism or the friends who were macrobiotic fanatics. Her name was Angela Gordon and of course her daughter Khyra ultimately died as a result of the diet which her mother had imposed.
Sometimes, although parents are trying to do what they think is best for their children, their actions will actually be harmful. This is true of diet and it can be equally true of education. We cannot really judge simply by motives and intentions; it is very rare for a parent to set out to harm a child. In the case of somebody like Angela Gordon, we have to ask ourselves to what extent others should have respected her rights as a parent. When she specifically instructed the staff at her children's school that they were not to be allowed second helpings, should the staff have gone along with this? Would it have been right for the state to intervene? Should her 'rights' as a parent have been respected? Would it have been right for the state to make sure that my own daughter was allowed to eat meat? What if I had been giving her nothing but brown rice, would that have been sufficient for the state to take a hand?
The fact that a parent is genuinely trying to do her best for her child does not necessarily mean that her judgement is sound. Some parents hit their children, which I would never have done. Are they wrong? Should the state intervene? There are no clear cut and black and white answers to these questions. I thought that keeping my child out of school and in my company more than in the company of children her own age was a good idea. Others did not. The fact is that there are certainly cases when the state should interfere, but it is horribly difficult to say when this should be. Deciding this is a purely personal matter. However, my purely personal decision might very well be a wrong and ill judged one. This is why we need a little objective and impartial oversight from time to time of our actions as parents.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Singing from the same sheet
I am often amused to hear that I am practically the only home educator in the country who approves of new legislation. It is perfectly true that an appearance of wonderful unanimity has been achieved on various Internet lists and other places and this does have the overall effect of presenting home educating parents as united in the hatred of and opposition to the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009. How is this illusion maintained?
Until I was chucked off the various lists last Summer, I used to take an active part in many of the debates on both the HE-UK and EO lists. I would regularly get emails off-list from people who told me that they actually agreed with what I was saying but did not like to come out on my side openly. One mother told me that she was frightened of 'putting her head above the parapet'! I found this pretty disturbing. The reason these women did not like to say the things that I was saying was simply because they knew that it would make them unpopular with some of the more aggressive and regular posters. I watched this happen a few times. Some poor person would join and then express an opinion about visits from the local authority or registration and would then be hounded into keeping quiet. A number of mothers were actually driven off the HE-UK list in this way. One woman with whom I was in contact was sent very unpleasant emails off-list. She had suggested that Graham Badman might have a point!
A mother posted recently on one of the lists saying that she had had a very pleasant and positive experience of a visit by her local authority. You might imagine that this was a good thing, but it did not take long before other people began trying to poison this woman against her local authority. She was told that accepting visits could be bad for other parents, that she was letting down the side, she should not trust the local authority officer, that if she declined a visit in the future, the local authority might think she was abusing her children! I don't think that this particular person will be posting again in a hurry about having a nice visit. This is one of the ways that the united front is enforced; by ensuring that mothers who don't toe the line are made to feel uncomfortable and as though they are in some way letting down other parents by having an enjoyable monitoring visit. Since isolated mothers often depend on these lists, they do not wish to become unpopular for expressing heterodox views. This sort of thing is of course a type of bullying.
Another way of manipulating the appearance of home education in this country is done more subtly. A yahoo group called Homeedoutcomes has recently been started. The person running it has been appealing for true accounts of successful home education outcomes. I applied to join the list weeks ago, but despite following up this with another email, it is pretty clear that I shall not be allowed to do so. The eventual collection of accounts will be limited to those who chose an unstructured education for their children. This is a deliberate strategy in order to present a distorted picture of home education in this country. Just to check, I got another home educating parent known to me to send in a brief account of her structured home education outcomes. The same thing; she will not be allowed to contribute her story either!
These are just a couple of the ways in which a particular strand of home education attempts to portray itself as the one true faith.
Until I was chucked off the various lists last Summer, I used to take an active part in many of the debates on both the HE-UK and EO lists. I would regularly get emails off-list from people who told me that they actually agreed with what I was saying but did not like to come out on my side openly. One mother told me that she was frightened of 'putting her head above the parapet'! I found this pretty disturbing. The reason these women did not like to say the things that I was saying was simply because they knew that it would make them unpopular with some of the more aggressive and regular posters. I watched this happen a few times. Some poor person would join and then express an opinion about visits from the local authority or registration and would then be hounded into keeping quiet. A number of mothers were actually driven off the HE-UK list in this way. One woman with whom I was in contact was sent very unpleasant emails off-list. She had suggested that Graham Badman might have a point!
A mother posted recently on one of the lists saying that she had had a very pleasant and positive experience of a visit by her local authority. You might imagine that this was a good thing, but it did not take long before other people began trying to poison this woman against her local authority. She was told that accepting visits could be bad for other parents, that she was letting down the side, she should not trust the local authority officer, that if she declined a visit in the future, the local authority might think she was abusing her children! I don't think that this particular person will be posting again in a hurry about having a nice visit. This is one of the ways that the united front is enforced; by ensuring that mothers who don't toe the line are made to feel uncomfortable and as though they are in some way letting down other parents by having an enjoyable monitoring visit. Since isolated mothers often depend on these lists, they do not wish to become unpopular for expressing heterodox views. This sort of thing is of course a type of bullying.
Another way of manipulating the appearance of home education in this country is done more subtly. A yahoo group called Homeedoutcomes has recently been started. The person running it has been appealing for true accounts of successful home education outcomes. I applied to join the list weeks ago, but despite following up this with another email, it is pretty clear that I shall not be allowed to do so. The eventual collection of accounts will be limited to those who chose an unstructured education for their children. This is a deliberate strategy in order to present a distorted picture of home education in this country. Just to check, I got another home educating parent known to me to send in a brief account of her structured home education outcomes. The same thing; she will not be allowed to contribute her story either!
These are just a couple of the ways in which a particular strand of home education attempts to portray itself as the one true faith.
On thinking that one's own way is best
The accusation has been not infrequently levelled at me that I believe that my own way of home educating is the best and that other people's methods are at best ineffective and at worst actually harmful to the children concerned. This is of course perfectly true and I make no apology for it. The only thing I find a little astonishing is the gross hypocrisy of those making this charge. The fact is, we all think that our way of doing things is the best way and that if only others emulated our wise and good ways then whatever process is involved would be a accomplished more smoothly and efficiently. This is true of hobbies, professional activities, child rearing or any other human activity which one cares to mention.
I have known a number of people whose hobby was cross stitch. This is a very genteel pastime and you would think that those who undertook it would be very tolerant of others, but every single person who I knew that ever did cross stitch had her own way of going about things, a way that she was convinced was better than anybody else's. Some regard a different technique for back stitching as little short of heresy. I have observed the same phenomenon with mechanics, sportsmen, window cleaners, psychologists, and parents. All are absolutely sure that their way of doing the thing is best and that if only everybody else followed their lead then everyone would be a good deal happier and the whole world would run more smoothly. I don't see home education as being any different from this. Of course all those who undertake it believe that their way is so much more gentle/firm/sensible/effective/compassionate/ethical/respectful/educational/kind/holistic than anybody else's technique. This is human nature. Of course it is not at all true; some of us are actually harming our children, while others are doing brilliantly. Unfortunately, there is no objective way of deciding which is which. If I have hinted that I believe some parents to be neglecting their children's education by their crackpot methods, they for their part have more than hinted that my own daughter's childhood must have been a nightmare and that my own system sounds cruel!
As I say, there is no way really of deciding which way of home educating a child is the best. Besides, it probably varies greatly from child to child. The point which I am trying to make is that it is ridiculous to reproach me for thinking that my way of doing things is the best and that others should follow my wise advice. Of course I feel this way; so does everybody else. I have not the least doubt that those who criticise me so bitterly think that the way that they are doing things is far better than mine. This is only natural. We all love our children and want what is best for them, however mistaken we might be. It is very rare for a parent to set out on a course which she honestly thinks is harmful for her child. Even in cases like that of Khyra Ishaq I am quite prepared to believe that the mother actually though that she was doing the best for her child. Most of us would say that she was mistaken, but she herself almost certainly was not intending to act in a wickedly cruel fashion. Her obsession with her own weight and with food intake led her onto a wrong path; she was not an evil person.
So it is with all human activity. Whether we are washing up, teaching our children to read or painting a door, we all have our own special way of going about the business that we feel is the best possible way of doing it. I like to rinse the dishes under running water when they have been washed and the sight of somebody smearing them with one of those dirty rags that the English call 'tea towels' makes me cringe! I am sure that others regard my own way of washing up as a little bizarre. So it is with teaching our children. Of course I think my way best; I wouldn't do it otherwise. Just as those slackers who leave their children to fathom out the alphabetic code for themselves imagine, however deluded they might be, that their way is the best. It is hardly sensible to criticise me for believing that I have the best method and thinking that all other home educators should adopt my methods. It would be strange if I didn't feel that way.
I have known a number of people whose hobby was cross stitch. This is a very genteel pastime and you would think that those who undertook it would be very tolerant of others, but every single person who I knew that ever did cross stitch had her own way of going about things, a way that she was convinced was better than anybody else's. Some regard a different technique for back stitching as little short of heresy. I have observed the same phenomenon with mechanics, sportsmen, window cleaners, psychologists, and parents. All are absolutely sure that their way of doing the thing is best and that if only everybody else followed their lead then everyone would be a good deal happier and the whole world would run more smoothly. I don't see home education as being any different from this. Of course all those who undertake it believe that their way is so much more gentle/firm/sensible/effective/compassionate/ethical/respectful/educational/kind/holistic than anybody else's technique. This is human nature. Of course it is not at all true; some of us are actually harming our children, while others are doing brilliantly. Unfortunately, there is no objective way of deciding which is which. If I have hinted that I believe some parents to be neglecting their children's education by their crackpot methods, they for their part have more than hinted that my own daughter's childhood must have been a nightmare and that my own system sounds cruel!
As I say, there is no way really of deciding which way of home educating a child is the best. Besides, it probably varies greatly from child to child. The point which I am trying to make is that it is ridiculous to reproach me for thinking that my way of doing things is the best and that others should follow my wise advice. Of course I feel this way; so does everybody else. I have not the least doubt that those who criticise me so bitterly think that the way that they are doing things is far better than mine. This is only natural. We all love our children and want what is best for them, however mistaken we might be. It is very rare for a parent to set out on a course which she honestly thinks is harmful for her child. Even in cases like that of Khyra Ishaq I am quite prepared to believe that the mother actually though that she was doing the best for her child. Most of us would say that she was mistaken, but she herself almost certainly was not intending to act in a wickedly cruel fashion. Her obsession with her own weight and with food intake led her onto a wrong path; she was not an evil person.
So it is with all human activity. Whether we are washing up, teaching our children to read or painting a door, we all have our own special way of going about the business that we feel is the best possible way of doing it. I like to rinse the dishes under running water when they have been washed and the sight of somebody smearing them with one of those dirty rags that the English call 'tea towels' makes me cringe! I am sure that others regard my own way of washing up as a little bizarre. So it is with teaching our children. Of course I think my way best; I wouldn't do it otherwise. Just as those slackers who leave their children to fathom out the alphabetic code for themselves imagine, however deluded they might be, that their way is the best. It is hardly sensible to criticise me for believing that I have the best method and thinking that all other home educators should adopt my methods. It would be strange if I didn't feel that way.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Is there a typical home educator?
Although one cannot generalise, I have noticed over the years that some types of people are more commonly home educating parents than others. For instance, I have a sneaking suspicion that very few home educators are in favour of fox hunting! I would also be prepared to bet that there are far more labour voters than conservatives among home educating parents, at least until Ed Balls took over as Secretary of State for Education! Nor would I be at all surprised to learn that vegetarianism was more common, as well as anxiety and depression.
Here are a few more things which I think might be more likely to be found with home educating parents. Firstly of course, they are mainly women. Secondly, I rather think that many of them are single mothers. The UK average is around 16%, or one in six. I'm guessing that this proportion is probably higher among home educators. What about unhappy childhoods? Could it be possible that some of these parents are determined to give their children a better and happier childhood than they themselves had? I happen to know that this is definitely so with a few well known home educators, but I would be keen to hear if it is a common feature. I am pretty sure that the majority have sent their children to school and then subsequently deregistered them.
A natural corollary of this is that if some character traits are commoner among home educating parents, then there might equally well be characteristics which are more likely to be found in the children of home educators. Now of course, this does not mean that there is a typical home educator or a typical home educated child, but never the less I think that some things might be commoner in such children than in the ordinary population. Being sensitive and anxious are the sort of things which I am wondering about here. I do not know whether this is so, I am simply ravelling a thread. I suppose that I am thinking that it is at least possible that a certain type of parent might raise a certain kind of child who might react differently from most children to the rough and tumble of school. A child whose parents have taught her too much about justice and fairness for instance would probably have a little difficulty in adapting to the average school! If this child were also a little more sensitive than most, then the unfairness encountered every day might be a seriously disturbing and cause great unhappiness. I wonder if this might be a possibility? Are home educating parents overly concerned with justice and fairness? Have they taught their children from an early age to expect or require these qualities in others? It is an interesting thought.
Here are a few more things which I think might be more likely to be found with home educating parents. Firstly of course, they are mainly women. Secondly, I rather think that many of them are single mothers. The UK average is around 16%, or one in six. I'm guessing that this proportion is probably higher among home educators. What about unhappy childhoods? Could it be possible that some of these parents are determined to give their children a better and happier childhood than they themselves had? I happen to know that this is definitely so with a few well known home educators, but I would be keen to hear if it is a common feature. I am pretty sure that the majority have sent their children to school and then subsequently deregistered them.
A natural corollary of this is that if some character traits are commoner among home educating parents, then there might equally well be characteristics which are more likely to be found in the children of home educators. Now of course, this does not mean that there is a typical home educator or a typical home educated child, but never the less I think that some things might be commoner in such children than in the ordinary population. Being sensitive and anxious are the sort of things which I am wondering about here. I do not know whether this is so, I am simply ravelling a thread. I suppose that I am thinking that it is at least possible that a certain type of parent might raise a certain kind of child who might react differently from most children to the rough and tumble of school. A child whose parents have taught her too much about justice and fairness for instance would probably have a little difficulty in adapting to the average school! If this child were also a little more sensitive than most, then the unfairness encountered every day might be a seriously disturbing and cause great unhappiness. I wonder if this might be a possibility? Are home educating parents overly concerned with justice and fairness? Have they taught their children from an early age to expect or require these qualities in others? It is an interesting thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
