I am among the most cynical of men, particularly where politics and politicians are concerned. I always assume that the reasons which we as the public are given for this or that action are not the true reasons, or at least not the whole story. One would think that I would jump at the chance to detect the hallmark of some sinister conspiracy in the introduction of regulations for home education and yet I just can't see it.
I have been looking round the Dare to Know blog over the last day or so and I have to say that some of the individuals who are to be found there are considerably more extreme than most of those who comment here. One famous mother, whose email name is to be seen everywhere, expressed the view that there was a determination to suppress home education and those trying to do so did not care if lives were lost in the process! This seemed to me to be so absolutely barking mad that I had to re-read the thing slowly and see whether or not she meant this seriously. As far as I could make out, she did. Others commenting there apparently shared this belief that the aim of any new legislations was to force home educated children to attend school, no matter what the cost to their lives.
The first thing that strikes one about this sort of belief is, 'What is the motive for such a move?' Why would anybody wish to put an end to home education, especially to the extent that they would not mind children losing their lives in the process? This simply does not make any sense to me. After all, home educating parents and children do not pose any threat to the government. The worst they are likely to do is turn out ill educated and semi-literate teenagers and as God He knows, there are plenty of them leaving school as it is! The few thousand home educated youths are the merest drop in the ocean. I have seen the suggestion that these home educated children are radical free thinkers whom the establishment fears, but that does not quite ring true either. Again, there are plenty of weird teenagers about with crackpot ideas; there always have been. I doubt that a few more each year is likely to alarm the government.
What remains then? The rumour has been spread that Graham Badman is doing all this to drum up business for BECTA, an IT company in which he is involved. If that were the case though, you would hardly think that he would be able to enlist the British government in aiding him to make a few bob on the side. A more plausible hidden reason for the attempt to regulate home education is that the government got the wind up in 2008 when Scarlett Keely and Khyra Ishaq, both home educated children, were killed. It was felt that this sort of thing could turn into a bit of a scandal and that it would be best for the DfCSF to look as though they were on the case. This is entirely possible, but I can't think that it is the whole story. There is also the fear among some local authorities that some time in the future, they will get formerly home educated children pursuing them as adults and trying to sue them because they did not receive proper educations from their parents. This is not an unrealistic fear. We have seen adults attempting legal action for bullying which they endured as children, I can quite see that somebody whose education was supposedly monitored by the local authority might come back in ten or twenty years and say, 'Why didn't you keep a closer eye on my parents; my life has been ruined by my lack of GCSEs!'
One feels though that applying Occam's Razor to the situation brings one to the conclusion that the simplest and most likely explanation which covers all the facts is probably the correct one. That is that there is a certain amount of uneasiness felt about children who are at home and perhaps not seen as regularly as most school children. It took quite some while to establish universal education for children in this country and I suspect that some both in local authorities and the government are worried that this idea might be slipping a little and that people might be getting the idea that they need simply not send their children to school and there is an end to the matter. I don't for a moment think that most home educating parents are like this, but I am pretty sure that there are some. I think that there is a desire to nip this sort of thinking in the bud before it becomes too widespread.
I would be curious to hear of any other sensible explanation for the introduction of regulation into home education. An explanation beyond the obvious one of concern for children.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Monday, 29 March 2010
Will the Children, Schools and Families Bill kill children?
I have been grappling recently with the assertion made on several lists and blogs that the passage of the CSF Bill will result in the death of children who will commit suicide if forced to attend school. It sounded very implausible to me, but I thought it worth looking into the question in a little depth. To begin with, I telephoned an old friend to whom I have not spoken for a couple of years. She is a Community Psychiatric Nurse who works with adolescents. I put to her the thesis that problems at school or the fear of school were major factors in the suicide or attempted suicide of children and young people. I have to report that she laughed unpleasantly at the idea and gave the kind of snort which is usually rendered as, 'Huh!' Her view was that most of the kids who attempt suicide are disturbed and that their parents often blame schools or bullying as a way of diverting attention from problems at home which have actually had more bearing on the matter. She pointed out that an awful lot of bullying actually takes place within families! She then directed me towards a lot of research, which I am bound to say seems to bear out her opinion. I have listed some of this at the bottom of the post for those who wish to check for themselves.
To begin with, over 90% of children and adolescents who attempt suicide are indeed suffering from psychiatric disorders. Chief among these are emotional disorders including anxiety and depression. Mental illness in children is associated with a number of risk factors such as family conflict, living in rented housing, having a parent with mental heath problems and having a low reading age. A very big factor is the child living apart from the father; in other words being part of a fractured family. This increases the risk of mental illness in a child by 40%. Normal, well balanced and healthy adolescents do not tend to attempt suicide in response to stressful life events, whether involving school or anything else.
It seems to me, after looking into this carefully, that the idea that home educated children would kill themselves if sent back to school is pretty unlikely. I suppose that there would be a slight risk with any such child who was already suffering from a mental illness. Since only 4% of children are in this category, I should think that the chances of any child actually dying as a result of the passage of the Children, Schools and Families Bill is remote in the extreme. It must also be borne in mind that suicide in this age group is very rare, with only eleven cases a year being recorded. This means that on average each year only one child without a psychiatric problem commits suicide. Those wishing to look into this matter for themselves, rather than relying upon Internet gossip, could start by reading Ford, Goodman and Meltzer's article; The relative importance of child, family, school and neighbourhood correlates of childhood psychiatric disorder. This may be found in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 487-96 2004. They might also care to read a publication by the Office of National Statistics called, Mental Health of Children and Young People in Great Britain, 2004.
I am sorry to dispel a popular myth, but suicides of this sort do seem, as my friend suggested, to be connected with psychiatric disorders and unfavourable home circumstances rather than schools. I find it interesting that living with a single mother is the greatest risk factor of all in such conditions and I would be curious to know whether the proportion of home educated children living apart from their fathers is higher than in the general population. The fact that having a low reading age is associated with mental health problems in children and adolescents might also prove of interest to some home educating parents. I think that these would be more productive lines of enquiry than looking at the educational setting itself as a precipitating factor for suicide.
To begin with, over 90% of children and adolescents who attempt suicide are indeed suffering from psychiatric disorders. Chief among these are emotional disorders including anxiety and depression. Mental illness in children is associated with a number of risk factors such as family conflict, living in rented housing, having a parent with mental heath problems and having a low reading age. A very big factor is the child living apart from the father; in other words being part of a fractured family. This increases the risk of mental illness in a child by 40%. Normal, well balanced and healthy adolescents do not tend to attempt suicide in response to stressful life events, whether involving school or anything else.
It seems to me, after looking into this carefully, that the idea that home educated children would kill themselves if sent back to school is pretty unlikely. I suppose that there would be a slight risk with any such child who was already suffering from a mental illness. Since only 4% of children are in this category, I should think that the chances of any child actually dying as a result of the passage of the Children, Schools and Families Bill is remote in the extreme. It must also be borne in mind that suicide in this age group is very rare, with only eleven cases a year being recorded. This means that on average each year only one child without a psychiatric problem commits suicide. Those wishing to look into this matter for themselves, rather than relying upon Internet gossip, could start by reading Ford, Goodman and Meltzer's article; The relative importance of child, family, school and neighbourhood correlates of childhood psychiatric disorder. This may be found in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 487-96 2004. They might also care to read a publication by the Office of National Statistics called, Mental Health of Children and Young People in Great Britain, 2004.
I am sorry to dispel a popular myth, but suicides of this sort do seem, as my friend suggested, to be connected with psychiatric disorders and unfavourable home circumstances rather than schools. I find it interesting that living with a single mother is the greatest risk factor of all in such conditions and I would be curious to know whether the proportion of home educated children living apart from their fathers is higher than in the general population. The fact that having a low reading age is associated with mental health problems in children and adolescents might also prove of interest to some home educating parents. I think that these would be more productive lines of enquiry than looking at the educational setting itself as a precipitating factor for suicide.
Carlotta and the ad hominem attacks
I have already remarked that I find it a bit thick to be accused by the author of the Dare to Know blog of having blood on my hands and being responsible for the suicide and sterility of young people who have been compelled to attend school. Having posted a personal attack on me, Carlotta then followed it up with this,
"I don't want to get bogged down in unproductive debate with this particular individual who has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to argue with a due respect for reality, the rules of logic or with much integrity,"
Harsh words indeed! But what I find utterly astonishing is that she then comments here, saying,
"Go easy on the ad hominems,"
The correct time to reproach somebody for making an ad hominem attack is probably before you have attempted to implicate him in the sterility or death of your friends and accused him of lacking integrity, not after! I can only assume that this complaint about ad hominem attacks was meant humorously. Nothing would please me more than to avoid getting bogged down in an unproductive debate with this lunatic, but I can hardly be expected to ignore it when an open Internet site is mentioning my name in connection with causing suicide and sterility!
(For those who are scratching their heads at this point and wondering what this is all about, the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby one avoids debating rationally and resorts to personal attacks. For example, rather than debating the continued significance of Bevan V Shears 1911, one might instead say, " I refuse to debate with this person because he has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to argue with a due respect for reality, the rules of logic or even much integrity". This, in a nutshell, is the argumentum ad hominem.)
"I don't want to get bogged down in unproductive debate with this particular individual who has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to argue with a due respect for reality, the rules of logic or with much integrity,"
Harsh words indeed! But what I find utterly astonishing is that she then comments here, saying,
"Go easy on the ad hominems,"
The correct time to reproach somebody for making an ad hominem attack is probably before you have attempted to implicate him in the sterility or death of your friends and accused him of lacking integrity, not after! I can only assume that this complaint about ad hominem attacks was meant humorously. Nothing would please me more than to avoid getting bogged down in an unproductive debate with this lunatic, but I can hardly be expected to ignore it when an open Internet site is mentioning my name in connection with causing suicide and sterility!
(For those who are scratching their heads at this point and wondering what this is all about, the argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby one avoids debating rationally and resorts to personal attacks. For example, rather than debating the continued significance of Bevan V Shears 1911, one might instead say, " I refuse to debate with this person because he has repeatedly demonstrated an incapacity to argue with a due respect for reality, the rules of logic or even much integrity". This, in a nutshell, is the argumentum ad hominem.)
Computers and the home educated child
I suggested yesterday that it would not be a particularly brilliant thing for a home educated teenager to spend all day on the computer. The average child spends about four hours a day glued to electronic media and a lot more than this during the school holidays. I have long had a suspicion that home educated children probably spend far more time on their computers than do those at school, although of course it would be hard to gather data on this. Certainly on the lists, there is a lot of mention of the great benefits of computers. They give children an intrinsic reason to learn to read, they sharpen up maths skills, allow them to research topics which are of interest to them. You wonder really, why schools employ teachers at all! perhaps they should just install banks of computers and let the children get on with it.
I have to say, that whether watching the occasional television programme about home educated children, reading books about it and reading the comments on the lists, computers seem to feature far more than practicing the cello, reading Tolstoy or studying history. They do seem to be the educational method of choice for an awful lot of home educating parents. My daughter and I were amused to hear Fiona Nicholson on Woman's Hour, when asked to describe a typical day in her son's education. It apparently consists of the boy getting up, having breakfast, arguing with his mother and switching on the computer. As my daughter, who is the same age, remarked wryly, "Nice work if you can get it!" She is up at 6.45 each morning in order to take a country bus ten miles to college. Not that either of us were very surprised to hear that this was a typical day. One would have been a good deal more surprised to hear that a home educated youth had breakfast and then opened a textbook!
Still on the theme of computers and home educated children, I have mentioned before a book on home education by a woman called Deborah Durbin. This is officially endorsed by Education Otherwise, who say of it, "Should be in every library in England". (A somewhat skewed and Anglocentric viewpoint, but we shall pass over that!). According to this book, playing online games on a computer are great for many educational purposes, from mathematics and English, to hand-eye coordination. They are even handy for social skills, apparently. Many of us would think that meeting and talking to human beings in the flesh would be better for this, but seemingly a computer screen is a perfectly adequate substitute.
For many children and young people, computers have become the default setting when there is nothing else to do. They browse aimlessly, check out their friend's updates on Facebook, listen to music, play games and so on. Nothing wrong with this of course. It is certainly no worse than their parents slumping on the sofa watching Coronation Street! However, while we accept that watching soap operas and reality television is nothing more than mindless entertainment, we tend to accord a little more respect to our children's similarly brainless activities on the computer. Part of this is that we do not wish to appear backward looking old fuddy duddies. We want to be down with the youth and show that we too are with it. Hey, what does it matter whether they get their information from a leather bound book or from wikipedia, we say. How cool does that make us sound?
The fact is of course that the vast majority of what our children are doing on the Internet has very little to do with research and education. Human nature has not changed that much over the centuries and with so many distractions on offer on the Internet, it is inevitable that the fun things should distract greatly from the educational. Imagine if you will, that when at school you were provided with a pile of academic books and mixed in among them were comics, Enid Blyton books, games and toys. Suppose now that you were left alone in a cubicle and given a free choice of how much time you spent reading the textbooks and how long you spent reading the comics, doing the puzzles and playing with the games. This is precisely the situation faced by young people on the Internet. Human nature being as it is, it is perhaps inevitable that the entertainment and amusement part of the package should dominate their time online.
One of the great advantages of a book on biology is that while a child is reading it he is unlikely to be playing solitaire or Tetris at the same time. Nor is he likely to be texting his friends, looking at pornography or reading about football. The problem with allowing a child to 'learn' mainly from the Internet is that you really have little idea of what the time is actually being spent on. I have a suspicion that the enthusiasm which so many home educators display for computer based learning is that it enables them to get on with things while their children are occupied on something 'educational'. No harm in that, as long as we don't deceive ourselves as to what is really happening.
I have to say, that whether watching the occasional television programme about home educated children, reading books about it and reading the comments on the lists, computers seem to feature far more than practicing the cello, reading Tolstoy or studying history. They do seem to be the educational method of choice for an awful lot of home educating parents. My daughter and I were amused to hear Fiona Nicholson on Woman's Hour, when asked to describe a typical day in her son's education. It apparently consists of the boy getting up, having breakfast, arguing with his mother and switching on the computer. As my daughter, who is the same age, remarked wryly, "Nice work if you can get it!" She is up at 6.45 each morning in order to take a country bus ten miles to college. Not that either of us were very surprised to hear that this was a typical day. One would have been a good deal more surprised to hear that a home educated youth had breakfast and then opened a textbook!
Still on the theme of computers and home educated children, I have mentioned before a book on home education by a woman called Deborah Durbin. This is officially endorsed by Education Otherwise, who say of it, "Should be in every library in England". (A somewhat skewed and Anglocentric viewpoint, but we shall pass over that!). According to this book, playing online games on a computer are great for many educational purposes, from mathematics and English, to hand-eye coordination. They are even handy for social skills, apparently. Many of us would think that meeting and talking to human beings in the flesh would be better for this, but seemingly a computer screen is a perfectly adequate substitute.
For many children and young people, computers have become the default setting when there is nothing else to do. They browse aimlessly, check out their friend's updates on Facebook, listen to music, play games and so on. Nothing wrong with this of course. It is certainly no worse than their parents slumping on the sofa watching Coronation Street! However, while we accept that watching soap operas and reality television is nothing more than mindless entertainment, we tend to accord a little more respect to our children's similarly brainless activities on the computer. Part of this is that we do not wish to appear backward looking old fuddy duddies. We want to be down with the youth and show that we too are with it. Hey, what does it matter whether they get their information from a leather bound book or from wikipedia, we say. How cool does that make us sound?
The fact is of course that the vast majority of what our children are doing on the Internet has very little to do with research and education. Human nature has not changed that much over the centuries and with so many distractions on offer on the Internet, it is inevitable that the fun things should distract greatly from the educational. Imagine if you will, that when at school you were provided with a pile of academic books and mixed in among them were comics, Enid Blyton books, games and toys. Suppose now that you were left alone in a cubicle and given a free choice of how much time you spent reading the textbooks and how long you spent reading the comics, doing the puzzles and playing with the games. This is precisely the situation faced by young people on the Internet. Human nature being as it is, it is perhaps inevitable that the entertainment and amusement part of the package should dominate their time online.
One of the great advantages of a book on biology is that while a child is reading it he is unlikely to be playing solitaire or Tetris at the same time. Nor is he likely to be texting his friends, looking at pornography or reading about football. The problem with allowing a child to 'learn' mainly from the Internet is that you really have little idea of what the time is actually being spent on. I have a suspicion that the enthusiasm which so many home educators display for computer based learning is that it enables them to get on with things while their children are occupied on something 'educational'. No harm in that, as long as we don't deceive ourselves as to what is really happening.
Sunday, 28 March 2010
The best sort of education?
I have been considering this morning a strange and on the face of it utterly weird proposition. Yesterday, somebody commenting on here expressed the following opinion:
"Do you really believe that going to school all day is more beneficial than using Facebook all day? I certainly don't. At least, while using Facebook this girl is enjoying herself and potentially making friends and raising her self esteem. Many children un-school in this way. If she has potential, it is more likely to emerge under these conditions."
I have seen this view put before, indeed it seems to be quite a popular one on some HE lists. If it were not for this, I should be inclined simply to dismiss it as obviously mad and irresponsible. However, let us treat it seriously and see where it takes us. I think we may safely ignore one sentence straight away; the fact that many home educated children spend their days in this way is no sort of recommendation at all. Many children might be starving themselves or taking drugs; this does not mean that these are desirable course of action. What about the assertion that if a teenager has potential, it is more likely to emerge through using Facebook all day? It is an interesting thesis.
Anybody watching a teenager using Facebook will soon notice that this is all too often an essentially sterile pursuit, somewhat akin to leafing idly through a magazine in the dentist's waiting room. A lot of it consists of looking at photographs of other teenagers, generally taken on mobile phones. There is nothing wrong with this, although most of the photographs are very similar; teenagers putting their tongues out or pulling silly faces. I have never personally seen the attraction of this, but then we all have different hobbies. Another popular game is checking up on friends and friends of friends' status updates. Who's in a new relationship, what's written on your friends' walls and so on. Again, quite an innocuous occupation as far as it goes. The question is, is this the best way to bring out a young person's potential? This is far from clear.
What sort of potential is likely to emerge from glancing at other people's photograph albums or reading what teenagers have to say about their relationships? It might well be valuable socially, but bringing out potential? And being more beneficial generally than being in school? These are curious ideas indeed. One can see how school might bring out potential. Perhaps a child will discover a love of creative writing or an interest in literature. Possibly she will find that she is good at painting or sports, a passion for history might emerge as a consequence of learning about the Tudors. She could find that she enjoys music. I can think of many similar examples. I cannot readily think of any example of the emergence of potential which might come about through spending the day browsing Facebook! The potential to be a spiteful gossip, perhaps? The potential to waste one's life by living vicariously the experiences of others? The potential to be some sort of digital peeping Tom?
It is certainly possible that a teenager would enjoy doing this, as the person who commented yesterday said, and that is absolutely fine, although I am a little unsure as to how looking at Facebook would raise anybody's self esteem. It is conceivable that a lonely teenager would be able to make friends like this, although this is not how it usually happens. Most of us would think that real flesh and blood contact with other human beings would be better than clicking on little avatars like this. And of course, at least as much bullying takes place on such sites as in the playground! Hanging out on Facebook might raise a child's self esteem; it might equally well drive her to despair!
I am grateful to the person who made this comment yesterday, because it illustrates perfectly why many professionals in the field of education feel that there is a need for greater oversight of home education. I don't doubt for a moment that it is true, as this person says, that, "Many children un-school in this way" . That many children supposedly being educated out of school are spending their days slumped in front of a computer while they trawl through social networking sites does not surprise me in the least. This may be a harmless enough hobby or pastime; whether or not it is an adequate substitute for an education is rather more open to question. I can very easily understand why parents who are neglecting their children's education in this way should be resolutely opposed to allowing local authority officers into their homes lest they discover this. I strongly suspect that this fear is at the root of much of the uneasiness about the new legislation and it is refreshing to hear the views of somebody who is being honest about the matter.
"Do you really believe that going to school all day is more beneficial than using Facebook all day? I certainly don't. At least, while using Facebook this girl is enjoying herself and potentially making friends and raising her self esteem. Many children un-school in this way. If she has potential, it is more likely to emerge under these conditions."
I have seen this view put before, indeed it seems to be quite a popular one on some HE lists. If it were not for this, I should be inclined simply to dismiss it as obviously mad and irresponsible. However, let us treat it seriously and see where it takes us. I think we may safely ignore one sentence straight away; the fact that many home educated children spend their days in this way is no sort of recommendation at all. Many children might be starving themselves or taking drugs; this does not mean that these are desirable course of action. What about the assertion that if a teenager has potential, it is more likely to emerge through using Facebook all day? It is an interesting thesis.
Anybody watching a teenager using Facebook will soon notice that this is all too often an essentially sterile pursuit, somewhat akin to leafing idly through a magazine in the dentist's waiting room. A lot of it consists of looking at photographs of other teenagers, generally taken on mobile phones. There is nothing wrong with this, although most of the photographs are very similar; teenagers putting their tongues out or pulling silly faces. I have never personally seen the attraction of this, but then we all have different hobbies. Another popular game is checking up on friends and friends of friends' status updates. Who's in a new relationship, what's written on your friends' walls and so on. Again, quite an innocuous occupation as far as it goes. The question is, is this the best way to bring out a young person's potential? This is far from clear.
What sort of potential is likely to emerge from glancing at other people's photograph albums or reading what teenagers have to say about their relationships? It might well be valuable socially, but bringing out potential? And being more beneficial generally than being in school? These are curious ideas indeed. One can see how school might bring out potential. Perhaps a child will discover a love of creative writing or an interest in literature. Possibly she will find that she is good at painting or sports, a passion for history might emerge as a consequence of learning about the Tudors. She could find that she enjoys music. I can think of many similar examples. I cannot readily think of any example of the emergence of potential which might come about through spending the day browsing Facebook! The potential to be a spiteful gossip, perhaps? The potential to waste one's life by living vicariously the experiences of others? The potential to be some sort of digital peeping Tom?
It is certainly possible that a teenager would enjoy doing this, as the person who commented yesterday said, and that is absolutely fine, although I am a little unsure as to how looking at Facebook would raise anybody's self esteem. It is conceivable that a lonely teenager would be able to make friends like this, although this is not how it usually happens. Most of us would think that real flesh and blood contact with other human beings would be better than clicking on little avatars like this. And of course, at least as much bullying takes place on such sites as in the playground! Hanging out on Facebook might raise a child's self esteem; it might equally well drive her to despair!
I am grateful to the person who made this comment yesterday, because it illustrates perfectly why many professionals in the field of education feel that there is a need for greater oversight of home education. I don't doubt for a moment that it is true, as this person says, that, "Many children un-school in this way" . That many children supposedly being educated out of school are spending their days slumped in front of a computer while they trawl through social networking sites does not surprise me in the least. This may be a harmless enough hobby or pastime; whether or not it is an adequate substitute for an education is rather more open to question. I can very easily understand why parents who are neglecting their children's education in this way should be resolutely opposed to allowing local authority officers into their homes lest they discover this. I strongly suspect that this fear is at the root of much of the uneasiness about the new legislation and it is refreshing to hear the views of somebody who is being honest about the matter.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
A bullied child
The idea that the CSF Bill would be wholly bad news for bullied children who have been taken out of school is so bizarre that I have not yet bothered to deal with it. However, since it has been suggested that I shall be personally responsible for any ensuing suicides, anorexia or sterility, perhaps I should say a few words on the subject!
Let us start by looking at a genuine bullied child who was withdrawn from school due to bullying. She is, I imagine, typical of many. Since the Summer I have been approached by a number of home educating parents locally. They have seen my daughter's picture in the local paper and are very impressed with her IGCSEs. Four parents have stopped me in the street and told me that they have removed their children from school and two of them have solicited my help. I want to look at one particular case.
Kirsty is thirteen years old. She was bullied unmercifully at her secondary school, partly because she has ginger hair and partly because she suffers from rhinitis. This gives her voice an adenoidal sound which apparently irritated the other pupils. In the end, her father took her out of school last June. Now the hope of her parents is that she will take GCSEs in the ordinary way while studying at home. Neither of her parents, both of whom are on incapacity benefit, know anything at all about the National Curriculum, GCSEs or anything else much. They knew only that their daughter was suffering and felt that life was not worth living and so took her from school. Now they simply want her to get the GCSEs while staying at home. A pretty typical example of the situation, I would imagine.
The guy asked me to come and talk to him and his daughter, which I did. First problem; he is very hard up. In order for the child to study IGCSE mathematics, she will need two textbooks costing £15 each. He will also need to download the specification from the Edexcel site. They could not afford a new cartridge for the printer. Apart from the two standard textbooks, he will really need at least one other book on calculus; the textbooks do not cover this well. That's another £15. They will also need to buy paper, pens and so on. Just for this one subject, the bill is already up to £70. Since they are wholly reliant upon state benefits, this is not realistic.
They also want and need plenty of advice on how to go about doing things. I put him in touch with a few HE lists, but he really wants somebody to talk to in person. He joined a group, but they were in the main middle class autonomous educators. He is very working class and did not feel at ease. What he ideally wants is for somebody 'From the council' as he puts it, to come round regularly to help him plan his daughter's education. People moan about the requirement for one visit a year; this man would welcome weekly visits if they were available! Essex County Council has three part-time workers handling EHE. If he is lucky, he will be able to have a brief chat on the phone as well as an annual visit, but that's his lot. Apart from that, he is on his own. There simply isn't the money for the council to provide any sort of effective service for parents like this.
At this point, I can imagine readers getting tetchy with this fellow. After all, the people who comment here are in the main pushy and articulate middle class types who are used to getting what they want and fighting for things. Not a few are actually teachers themselves. The problem is that this man, like other parents I have met is not a rebel or campaigner; he simply wants his child to have a decent education without suffering bullying. He would also, as well as the carrot of funding, welcome the stick of coercion. Why do I say this?
Like many teenagers, his daughter's default setting consists of spending hours on the computer, chatting on MSN, listening to pop music and looking at photographs of other teenagers on Facebook. When not doing this, she watches a lot of television. What her mother and father want is a timetable for her and also a structured curriculum. Like many families, education is something which has always taken place at school and the child is not particularly amenable to the idea of her parents telling her what to read and write. Her father told me that what he really wants is "A lady from the education" to come to the house and put the frighteners on the kid and tell her that unless she follows a strict timetable then she will have to go back to school. The girl would accept such a statement more readily from a teacher or local authority officer than she would from her own parents. Because this has not happened, the child has gradually settled into a routine of spending hours on the computer and only doing any academic work under protest. As things stand, she will be lucky to get one GCSE, let alone five. She wanted to study A levels when she was older, but without GCSEs this prospect is not realistic.
The Children, Schools and Families Bill would be a Godsend to this family. They actually want masses of support which they cannot currently obtain. They also need that 0.1 of the AWPU which would pay for books and so on. I do not say that all bullied children who have been deregistered from school are like this, only that quite a few are. As things stand, this child's prospects are dismal. With the right help, they would be dramatically improved.
Let us start by looking at a genuine bullied child who was withdrawn from school due to bullying. She is, I imagine, typical of many. Since the Summer I have been approached by a number of home educating parents locally. They have seen my daughter's picture in the local paper and are very impressed with her IGCSEs. Four parents have stopped me in the street and told me that they have removed their children from school and two of them have solicited my help. I want to look at one particular case.
Kirsty is thirteen years old. She was bullied unmercifully at her secondary school, partly because she has ginger hair and partly because she suffers from rhinitis. This gives her voice an adenoidal sound which apparently irritated the other pupils. In the end, her father took her out of school last June. Now the hope of her parents is that she will take GCSEs in the ordinary way while studying at home. Neither of her parents, both of whom are on incapacity benefit, know anything at all about the National Curriculum, GCSEs or anything else much. They knew only that their daughter was suffering and felt that life was not worth living and so took her from school. Now they simply want her to get the GCSEs while staying at home. A pretty typical example of the situation, I would imagine.
The guy asked me to come and talk to him and his daughter, which I did. First problem; he is very hard up. In order for the child to study IGCSE mathematics, she will need two textbooks costing £15 each. He will also need to download the specification from the Edexcel site. They could not afford a new cartridge for the printer. Apart from the two standard textbooks, he will really need at least one other book on calculus; the textbooks do not cover this well. That's another £15. They will also need to buy paper, pens and so on. Just for this one subject, the bill is already up to £70. Since they are wholly reliant upon state benefits, this is not realistic.
They also want and need plenty of advice on how to go about doing things. I put him in touch with a few HE lists, but he really wants somebody to talk to in person. He joined a group, but they were in the main middle class autonomous educators. He is very working class and did not feel at ease. What he ideally wants is for somebody 'From the council' as he puts it, to come round regularly to help him plan his daughter's education. People moan about the requirement for one visit a year; this man would welcome weekly visits if they were available! Essex County Council has three part-time workers handling EHE. If he is lucky, he will be able to have a brief chat on the phone as well as an annual visit, but that's his lot. Apart from that, he is on his own. There simply isn't the money for the council to provide any sort of effective service for parents like this.
At this point, I can imagine readers getting tetchy with this fellow. After all, the people who comment here are in the main pushy and articulate middle class types who are used to getting what they want and fighting for things. Not a few are actually teachers themselves. The problem is that this man, like other parents I have met is not a rebel or campaigner; he simply wants his child to have a decent education without suffering bullying. He would also, as well as the carrot of funding, welcome the stick of coercion. Why do I say this?
Like many teenagers, his daughter's default setting consists of spending hours on the computer, chatting on MSN, listening to pop music and looking at photographs of other teenagers on Facebook. When not doing this, she watches a lot of television. What her mother and father want is a timetable for her and also a structured curriculum. Like many families, education is something which has always taken place at school and the child is not particularly amenable to the idea of her parents telling her what to read and write. Her father told me that what he really wants is "A lady from the education" to come to the house and put the frighteners on the kid and tell her that unless she follows a strict timetable then she will have to go back to school. The girl would accept such a statement more readily from a teacher or local authority officer than she would from her own parents. Because this has not happened, the child has gradually settled into a routine of spending hours on the computer and only doing any academic work under protest. As things stand, she will be lucky to get one GCSE, let alone five. She wanted to study A levels when she was older, but without GCSEs this prospect is not realistic.
The Children, Schools and Families Bill would be a Godsend to this family. They actually want masses of support which they cannot currently obtain. They also need that 0.1 of the AWPU which would pay for books and so on. I do not say that all bullied children who have been deregistered from school are like this, only that quite a few are. As things stand, this child's prospects are dismal. With the right help, they would be dramatically improved.
Friday, 26 March 2010
Blood on my hands!
I posted a few days ago about the way that those in favour of new legislation for home education were being accused of having blood on their hands. I now find that I too am in this category. On a blog called Dare to Know, some fool has put the following;
"Wednesday, March 17, 2010
To all supporters of Schedule 1
...of the CSF bill, Deech, Soley, Badman, Ed Balls, Simon Webb, whoever you may be. Be very aware that by forcing children, either because of some administrative error on the part of parents, or because an ignorant LA officer says so and without any chance to offer a defence in court, back into school, you will almost certainly have blood on your hands"
It is not, as readers of this blog will be aware, my habit to be insulting about others, but I cannot help saying that this ill-informed idiot should be set in the pillory and pelted with offal. I have never read such rubbish in my life. Let's examine her claims.
Firstly she says, 'without any chance to offer a defence in court'. This is sheer nonsense. The mechanism for compelling a child to attend school will remain precisely the same as it is now; the issuing of a School Attendance Order. If this is ignored, then the local authority will have to bring a prosecution to enforce it. This is as a result of the case of Bevan V Shears in 1911, a key case of binding precedent which should be familiar to all home educators. Lord Alverstone, in delivering his judgement said,
"In the absence of anything in the bye-laws providing that a child of a
given age shall receive instruction in given subjects, in my view it cannot be said that there is a standard of education by which the child must be taught. The court has to decide whether in their opinion the child is being taught efficiently so far as that particular child is concerned."
It is as a result of Lord Alverstone's judgement that schools and local authorities cannot just force a child to go to school. they must go through the courts. This will not change. Indeed, under the new law another layer of protection is added to the parent who does not wish her child to attend school. They will initially, before a School Attendance Order is even issued, be able to appeal against the refusal or revocation of registration as home educators. See,
" 19 G
Appeal against authority’s decision
(1)
Regulations made under this section shall—
(a)
confer a right of appeal on a parent to whom a local authority
in England have given notice under section 19B(5)(b) or (c) or
19F(3)"
This is from Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009.
As far as the suicide rate among young people aged between eleven and seventeen is concerned, the suggestion is made that this might rise as a result of the passage of this bill. I suppose that this is possible, although it would be very hard to make a direct causal link between the passing of an Act of Parliament and the subsequent suicide of a disturbed adolescent. According to the Office of National Statistics eleven young people a year kill themselves in this country. I suppose that another one or two might commit suicide if they were forced to go to school, but this would probably be countered by saving the lives of children who might kill themselves as a result of abuse suffered at the hands of their parents while being kept away from school. In other words, increasing regulation of home education would probably not increase the overall death rate among young people; simply alter the categories in which the deaths occurred. Actually, the numbers are so tiny that it is unlikely that any noticeable difference would be made. One can never reduce rates of suicide, homicide or abuse to zero.
The fact is that whatever we do or don't do, a certain number of children and young people will be murdered and abused. A small number will also commit suicide. If we tightened the regulations of home education or relaxed them, the overall death rate would be unlikely to change. (There is a booby prize waiting for the first person to either use the expression "Bullycide" or cite the figure of sixteen suicides a year caused by bullying).
"Wednesday, March 17, 2010
To all supporters of Schedule 1
...of the CSF bill, Deech, Soley, Badman, Ed Balls, Simon Webb, whoever you may be. Be very aware that by forcing children, either because of some administrative error on the part of parents, or because an ignorant LA officer says so and without any chance to offer a defence in court, back into school, you will almost certainly have blood on your hands"
It is not, as readers of this blog will be aware, my habit to be insulting about others, but I cannot help saying that this ill-informed idiot should be set in the pillory and pelted with offal. I have never read such rubbish in my life. Let's examine her claims.
Firstly she says, 'without any chance to offer a defence in court'. This is sheer nonsense. The mechanism for compelling a child to attend school will remain precisely the same as it is now; the issuing of a School Attendance Order. If this is ignored, then the local authority will have to bring a prosecution to enforce it. This is as a result of the case of Bevan V Shears in 1911, a key case of binding precedent which should be familiar to all home educators. Lord Alverstone, in delivering his judgement said,
"In the absence of anything in the bye-laws providing that a child of a
given age shall receive instruction in given subjects, in my view it cannot be said that there is a standard of education by which the child must be taught. The court has to decide whether in their opinion the child is being taught efficiently so far as that particular child is concerned."
It is as a result of Lord Alverstone's judgement that schools and local authorities cannot just force a child to go to school. they must go through the courts. This will not change. Indeed, under the new law another layer of protection is added to the parent who does not wish her child to attend school. They will initially, before a School Attendance Order is even issued, be able to appeal against the refusal or revocation of registration as home educators. See,
" 19 G
Appeal against authority’s decision
(1)
Regulations made under this section shall—
(a)
confer a right of appeal on a parent to whom a local authority
in England have given notice under section 19B(5)(b) or (c) or
19F(3)"
This is from Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009.
As far as the suicide rate among young people aged between eleven and seventeen is concerned, the suggestion is made that this might rise as a result of the passage of this bill. I suppose that this is possible, although it would be very hard to make a direct causal link between the passing of an Act of Parliament and the subsequent suicide of a disturbed adolescent. According to the Office of National Statistics eleven young people a year kill themselves in this country. I suppose that another one or two might commit suicide if they were forced to go to school, but this would probably be countered by saving the lives of children who might kill themselves as a result of abuse suffered at the hands of their parents while being kept away from school. In other words, increasing regulation of home education would probably not increase the overall death rate among young people; simply alter the categories in which the deaths occurred. Actually, the numbers are so tiny that it is unlikely that any noticeable difference would be made. One can never reduce rates of suicide, homicide or abuse to zero.
The fact is that whatever we do or don't do, a certain number of children and young people will be murdered and abused. A small number will also commit suicide. If we tightened the regulations of home education or relaxed them, the overall death rate would be unlikely to change. (There is a booby prize waiting for the first person to either use the expression "Bullycide" or cite the figure of sixteen suicides a year caused by bullying).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
