Beau Peep Notice Board
Beau Peep Notice Board => Outpourings => Topic started by: Mince on February 24, 2019, 11:23:07 AM
-
Some time ago I read a Guardian article about someone who home schools (or unschools) her children. In the comment sections was a lively disagreement between two people, one who home educates his children and another who believes such home educators should agree to regular visits from the Local Education Authorities. Though I copied only the responses from the home educator, they are enough to give an idea of the disagreement. I am putting them here because they made me chuckle on reading them again.
Because for me to home educate my child is my right, not the Local Authority's gift. I set the hours, the content, the style, the curriculum and everything else; all enshrined in Law. If the Local Authority have a problem with home education then they should seek to get the Law changed. If they, or anyone else, have concerns about a child's welfare then they should express them through the correct channels.
In response to 'If schools are inspected then it seems perfectly reasonable for home schooling to be inspected too. Or do these people consider themselves too elite to be part of the system?": If restaurant kitchens are inspected then it seems perfectly reasonable for your kitchen to be inspected too. Or do you consider yourself too elite to be part of the system?
For you to conflate the idea of home education with 'keeping a child from wider society' demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you seriously, seriously believe that I'd lock my kids in the house 24/7? It's every bit as likely that home educated children have more contact with 'wider society' than those attending a local school.
When someone in Authority exceeds their authority then the virtuous thing to do is to tell them to fuck off, not pander to them or walk on eggshells. You have totally failed to realise that Local Education officials attempting to involve themselves in home education are not 'doing their job' because they have no Legal right to do so (except, of course, in cases where there is evidence that a child is not, in fact, receiving education, and rightly so). I don't know what you do for a living, and I agree that if someone spoke to you that way for merely doing it you'd be right to feel aggrieved, but if you exceeded the boundaries then you'd get what you deserved.
When you exceed your authority as a teacher it's not for you pick and choose how the person you've offended against responds to you; I can readily believe that you'd prefer them to offer 'constructive advice and suggestions' but it's their prerogative to do otherwise if they so choose. Including telling you to fuck off.
Your argument that a visit (one hour a year) would somehow pick up on cases of abuse of the system beggars belief. And, for the n'th time, the LEA have no right whatsoever to visit homes where children are receiving home education; can you please, please stop referring to this as 'people doing their job'.
-
These are all yours. aren't they?
-
I wish they were.
Why is there an errant full stop in your sentence?
-
The boring reason is that I typed it on my phone in haste, without my glasses, and of course it should have been a comma. But I’d rather it was because I’m an outrageous rebel.
I also think the kitchen analogy is completely bogus.
-
I also think the kitchen analogy is completely bogus.
I believe the point being made is that there is no law giving anyone the right to inspect either your kitchen or your home education, and so any reasons anyone might have for either kind of inspection are irrelevant opinion. It's okay to hold the opinion that parents who home educate should be inspected, but keep in mind that their right to do so without inspection is enshrined in law.
That some people consider that cartoonists work places should be inspected on a regular basis after having caused offence by drawing Mohammed as a terrorist and Serena Williams in a racist ape-like pose still does not give anyone the right to overstep their authority and attempt to do so, and I'm sure you would feel equally disposed to tell anyone attempting to do so to fuck off.
-
Again, very different things. We're talking about the welfare of small children who are unlikely to be the ones making the decisions here. People eating in an unhygienic restaurant will probably choose not to return if they have any sense. The children of people eminently unqualified to tutor them at home (I'm talking generally here - I have absolutely no problem with you and Mrs Mince on that or any score) are a particular worry, as are those who may be experiencing domestic abuse that might be less likely to be detected than if that child attends school. Worst case scenarios for sure, but certainly not beyond possibility. Whether or not inspections would detect these things may be moot, but surely anyone confident that they were doing the job properly should have no objection to the potential safe-guarding that may occur from such visits?
I do believe that commercial kitchens can be (and often are) closed down by the authorities after health inspections. And rightly so.
As for your two examples, if I could have inspected the offices and studios of the Danish cartoonists and prohibited them from drawing their gratuitously offensive and entirely misdirected cartoons of Mohammed, I'd have done so in a heartbeat. Their arrogance (along with that of their publishers) and their actions led to many deaths. I've never defended them, and never will. Idiots, all.
The Serena cartoon, on the other hand, was possibly the biggest storm in a teacup in cartoon history - a point hammered home by the authorities within the past few hours.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-47352854 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-47352854)
-
those who may be experiencing domestic abuse that might be less likely to be detected than if that child attends school
Why are you not also asking for safe-guarding visits for the parents of all children under four, since they also do not attend school? Or how about all school children under 16 anyway, since a few school children are abused at home where they spend the majority of their time? Why are only home-schoolers treated as guilty until proven innocent when no other parents are? Do you notice the prejudice here?
people eminently unqualified to tutor them at home
Why do you think children cannot learn without being tutored? Did someone tutor you in drawing? Did someone tutor you to learn the English language by the age of three? Exactly what must children learn that their parents do not themselves know? Who gets to decide what constitutes an education? How do you ensure that those who visit the home-educated are qualified to evaluate whether a child is receiving an appropriate education for their age?
surely anyone confident that they were doing the job properly should have no objection to the potential safe-guarding that may occur from such visits
Tarks, someone is coming round to inspect your anus to look for concealed drugs. Surely if you've done nothing wrong then you won't object to the search. We must protect children from drugs.
I do believe that commercial kitchens can be (and often are) closed down by the authorities after health inspections. And rightly so.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the government should have the right to conduct random inspections of everyone's kitchen and the power to close them down?
As for your two examples, if I could have inspected the offices and studios of the Danish cartoonists and prohibited them from drawing their gratuitously offensive and entirely misdirected cartoons of Mohammed, I'd have done so in a heartbeat. Their arrogance (along with that of their publishers) and their actions led to many deaths. I've never defended them, and never will. Idiots, all.
Short of having the ability to see into the future, the only way that this could be achieved is to regularly inspect the offices of ALL innocent cartoonists? Is this what you're suggesting the government should do, and if so, do you think it would work?
-
those who may be experiencing domestic abuse that might be less likely to be detected than if that child attends school
Why are you not also asking for safe-guarding visits for the parents of all children under four, since they also do not attend school. Or how about all school children under 16 anyway, since a few school children are abused at home where they spend the majority of their time. Why are only home-schoolers treated as guilty until proven innocent when no other parents are? Do you notice the prejudice here?
One at a time here, I think.
I'm not asking for anything - just understanding why caution isn't always a bad thing. Anything that helps prevent child abuse is fine by me. Nobody is being treated as guilty, but I sure as Hell want any guilty ones rooted out, home-schooled or not. This wouldn't be the primary objective of inspections anyway, merely a further argument for it. The main reason would be to ensure that the children are getting what they need. If you can tell me that every single home-schooled child has parents like yours, then I'd argue that there would be no need. But you can't, can you? Stop taking the argument so personally.
-
people eminently unqualified to tutor them at home
Why do you think children cannot learn without being tutored? Did someone tutor you in drawing? Did someone tutor you to learn the English language by the age of three? Exactly what must children learn that their parents do not themselves know? Who gets to decide what constitutes an education? How do you ensure that those who visit the home-educated are qualified to evaluate whether a child is receiving an appropriate education for their age?
Much as I'd like to think I know better than everyone else on this planet, I'm afraid I don't. Sometimes I feel it's wise to trust people within institutions that have long experience to know even more than I do about the general well-being of my children. Not always though. I was once chairperson of my daughters' primary school board. I very publicly resigned after a few months declaring the system was wrong, as I couldn't be the only one in that position who really hadn't a clue what I was doing.
-
If you can tell me that every single home-schooled child has parents like yours, then I'd argue that there would be no need. But you can't, can you?
No, I can't tell you that every single home-schooled child has parents like us. But there are proper channels to follow for cases of suspected child abuse, and home inspections for those who are not even suspected is not the way to go.
-
Much as I'd like to think I know better than everyone else on this planet, I'm afraid I don't. Sometimes I feel it's wise to trust people within institutions that have long experience to know even more than I do about the general well-being of my children. Not always though. I was once chairperson of my daughters' primary school board. I very publicly resigned after a few months declaring the system was wrong, as I couldn't be the only one in that position who really hadn't a clue what I was doing.
Then again, why the need for inspections?
-
Much as I'd like to think I know better than everyone else on this planet, I'm afraid I don't. Sometimes I feel it's wise to trust people within institutions that have long experience to know even more than I do about the general well-being of my children. Not always though. I was once chairperson of my daughters' primary school board. I very publicly resigned after a few months declaring the system was wrong, as I couldn't be the only one in that position who really hadn't a clue what I was doing.
Then again, why the need for inspections?
Because education is actually a good thing that not everyone is skilled in imparting, and children deserve a decent education. Schools are inspected too.
-
surely anyone confident that they were doing the job properly should have no objection to the potential safe-guarding that may occur from such visits
Tarks, someone is coming round to inspect your anus to look for concealed drugs. Surely if you've done nothing wrong then you won't object to the search. We must protect children from drugs.
And we do our best to do just that. But you're talking hyperbollocks.
By pure coincidence, I have someone coming round to perform a bi-annual inspection on my flat tomorrow. It's a legal requirement for the rental sector. Both he and I know that it is unnecessary in my case (I'm a domestic God), and it will literally only take five minutes, but we both also know that it must be done, so we will be civil and even jovial, and go through the motions. I see no problem with it, and recognise that there is a genuine need in many cases for this to be done.
-
I do believe that commercial kitchens can be (and often are) closed down by the authorities after health inspections. And rightly so.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the government should have the right to conduct random inspections of everyone's kitchen and the power to close them down?
Might not be a bad thing, but no. I'm saying inspections can and do play vital roles sometimes, and when we're dealing with the welfare and wellbeing of children, there is probably no greater importance.
-
Because education is actually a good thing that not everyone is skilled in imparting, and children deserve a decent education. Schools are inspected too.
Why is 'good education' beyond what the parents know a good thing? And even if it is, why do you assume others need to 'impart' anything for children to get a good education?
Schools are inspected too.
But we're talking about private homes, not public institutions. There is a difference.
-
I'm saying inspections can and do play vital roles sometimes, and when we're dealing with the welfare and wellbeing of children, there is probably no greater importance.
So you're okay with similar visits for all children under four who are therefore also not at school?
-
As for your two examples, if I could have inspected the offices and studios of the Danish cartoonists and prohibited them from drawing their gratuitously offensive and entirely misdirected cartoons of Mohammed, I'd have done so in a heartbeat. Their arrogance (along with that of their publishers) and their actions led to many deaths. I've never defended them, and never will. Idiots, all.
Short of having the ability to see into the future, the only way that this could be achieved is to regularly inspect the offices of ALL innocent cartoonists? Is this what you're suggesting the government should do, and if so, do you think it would work?
I'm hoping that all, or at least most cartoonists will have learned from the folly of those that went before them. Sadly, this will not be the case. What they did was perfectly legal, and I defend their right to free expression, so long as they defend my right to call them the arrogant, dangerous arseholes they were back then. But again, this thread isn't about the potentially criminal or life-threatening issues, hugely important as those are - it's about ensuring the standards of a child's right to a proper education (no, I'm not qualified to decide exactly what that is - I learned a lot from my schooling...some of it even relating to education).
-
I'm saying inspections can and do play vital roles sometimes, and when we're dealing with the welfare and wellbeing of children, there is probably no greater importance.
So you're okay with similar visits for all children under four who are therefore also not at school?
If it prevented one child from being abused, yes.
-
Because education is actually a good thing that not everyone is skilled in imparting, and children deserve a decent education. Schools are inspected too.
Why is 'good education' beyond what the parents know a good thing? And even if it is, why do you assume others need to 'impart' anything for children to get a good education?
Schools are inspected too.
But we're talking about private homes, not public institutions. There is a difference.
Not every child is fortunate enough to have parents skilled as educators or even communicators, and some children of those parents may well be gifted way beyond the skills of those parents to satisfy or even cope with the demands of those children. The education system is (or should be) geared to provide for those children. It certainly is better qualified to even identify them in the first place.
Private homes that take on the role of public institutions are arguably in more need of inspection than those public institutions, to ensure that everything is being done in the best interest of the child. Failings will be more easily and widely identifiable in public institutions by their very nature, and possibly even more so than by the inspectors who have to be able to see through the extra efforts being made during their visits. Children are more likely to speak up about bad teaching in a public arena than bad parenting (and again, I'm not specifically referring to abusive situations here - it applies to the nurturing and educational skills of some parents - unless you think home-educators are a consistent and special breed?) behind closed doors.
-
Right - I need to do some housework...
-
You seem to be in favour of a nanny state. You ought to campaign for a change in the law then.
In Germany, it's illegal not to send your child to school. If I was a parent there, I would raise my children to cause a riot there every day.
-
I think I'd prefer to campaign against putting words in other people's mouths.
I'm actually pretty ambivalent to nannystatedom, since that accusation is always hurled by those who have a particular beef against whatever new law comes in that they don't like, usually on the grounds of a breach of civil liberties, even when there may be good reasons to apply such laws that don't necessarily concern the naysayers. I can think of no better motivation for laws than that which seeks to protect the interests of children.
I can also think of many examples of people I've encountered to whom I'd be aghast at the prospect of them ever home-schooling their progeny. Many of them were at the football match I attended on Saturday. I may be doing some of them a complete disservice of course, but not all. But I'd rest a little easier on that score if I knew that they'd occasionally be visited by professionals charged with the best interests of their children.
I'm no expert in how to teach kids, despite being a father of four. But I have a pretty good idea of how racism, xenophobia. and bigotry is instilled into young minds, and that is more often through their home life than their schooling. Perhaps a big part of the problem here isn't what might be omitted from the home-schooling curriculum, but what might be included.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that many or most home-schooling parents do a fine job (my concerns have always been more about the social aspects, as you know). But you can't make that a blanket statement about them all, just because it's the route you wish to take. I see nothing wrong with the occasional inspection in the interest of the children.
These days, you can't even adopt a puppy from a responsible breeder without proving you're worthy of the task.
-
In Germany, it's illegal not to send your child to school. If I was a parent there, I would raise my children to cause a riot there every day.
Do your own dirty work.
-
I can also think of many examples of people I've encountered to whom I'd be aghast at the prospect of them ever home-schooling their progeny.
And yet, provided they are not breaking any laws, I would defend their right to do so, just as I would defend their right to be parents in the first place.
But I'd rest a little easier on that score if I knew that they'd occasionally be visited by professionals charged with the best interests of their children.
I love how you still believe in these mythical people you call 'professionals', but the truth is that homeschooling parents will just be visited by undertrained, overworked and overzealous box tickers, just as our schools are. If you don't believe me, read what teachers themselves have to say about the morons who 'inspect' them.
But I have a pretty good idea of how racism, xenophobia. and bigotry is instilled into young minds, and that is more often through their home life than their schooling. Perhaps a big part of the problem here isn't what might be omitted from the home-schooling curriculum, but what might be included.
If a parent wishes their child to become racist, xenophobic and bigoted, they will achieve this whether the child attends school or not. You don't need to homeschool to do this.
But you can't make that a blanket statement about them all, just because it's the route you wish to take.
I never did.
I see nothing wrong with the occasional inspection in the interest of the children.
This is where I and the current law of the UK disagree with you.
-
we also have to think about how qualified the inspector is
we have all read stories about children dying because the so called teacher or social worker has not picked up on the signs of abuse early enough to stop it
so the problem is whom do we trust to inspect the said children and what experience do they have to see the problems
-
Peter, even an incompetent inspector is more lilely to detect problems than no inspector at all.
Mince, I can't be bothered to cut and paste any more, so, in order to your responses above:
1) I defend that right also. I just don't think checking up that all is well from time to time is an unreasonable intrusion, and may even be helpful, especially if someone is out of their depth. Everyone has a right to be a parent. But that can be taken away by current law if a child is at risk. These things happen.
2) Then get better professionals if that is true. I don't believe it will be true of them all.
3) Agreed. My point is that there are bad parents. You would let them home school their children. I'd rather they did not. The child of a bigot is more likely to escape that mindset if it gets to spend time away from that parent, and with other mindsets.
4) You talk about home schooling as a generality. The point is that every parent is different, and not all are equipped to be home-schooling. The principle is fine (although my own preference is for schools), but each case is different. Inspection would be about helping get the best for the child, not nannying every parent who chose that option. Some would benefit, others wouldn't need it.
5) So, are the rights of the parent more important than the welfare of the child?
-
Peter, even an incompetent inspector is more lilely to detect problems than no inspector at all.
That is dangerously untrue. Firstly, incompetent inspectors might incorrectly flag a home as non-abusive, resulting in later concerns from neighbours being dismissed; secondly, incompetent inspectors might wrongly flag a home as abusive, resulting in children being wrongly referred to an already over-burdened social services, drawing away those services from someone who needs them.
I defend that right also. I just don't think checking up that all is well from time to time is an unreasonable intrusion, and may even be helpful, especially if someone is out of their depth. Everyone has a right to be a parent. But that can be taken away by current law if a child is at risk. These things happen.
The phrase "out of their depth" suggests education, but "risk" suggests "abuse". Which are you talking about here?
Then get better professionals if that is true. I don't believe it will be true of them all.
The government cannot even find the money for the NHS or schools. Do you really think they will "get better professionals"?
Even inspectors who are competent and are 99% accurate at detecting abuse are going to unnecessarily flag up false positives. In statistics this is a base-rate fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy) called the false-positive paradox. The chances of abuse are very low, so most positives ('abuse being suspected') are going to be the result of the inspector wrongly seeing abuse where there is none.
Imagine that the chances of a family being abusive is 1 in 100,000. Imagine that the inspectors are 99% accurate. Here are the results for 1,000,000 families inspected (of whom 10 are abusive and 999,990 are not), all rounded to the nearest 1.
99% of the 999,990 non-abusive families are correctly reported to be non-abusive = 989,990 true negatives
1% of the 999,990 non-abusive families are incorrectly reported to be abusive = 10,000 false positives
99% of the 10 abusive families are correctly reported to be abusive = 10 true positives
1% of the 999,990 non-abusive families are incorrectly reported to be non-abusive = 0 false negatives
So for every 1,000,000 families, 10,010 are flagged as abusive when in fact only 10 of them really are, so for someone who is 99% accurate, he is right only 1 in a 1000 times. Can you imagine if he were not 99% accurate?
The child of a bigot is more likely to escape that mindset if it gets to spend time away from that parent, and with other mindsets.
I agree. But that does not mean we are both right. Making school compulsory on the off-chance that it might help a small number of bigots, or indeed any at all, is overkill.
The point is that every parent is different, and not all are equipped to be home-schooling.
How do you know this? What research are you referring to?
Inspection would be about helping get the best for the child, not nannying every parent who chose that option. Some would benefit, others wouldn't need it.
What kind of help would they get? Are these inspectors going to offer tuition? Or are they just going to offer a map showing where the library is? I'm seriously curious what the home educators can expect beyond a few "tut tut"s.
So, are the rights of the parent more important than the welfare of the child?
No, but there are proper channels to go through when suspicions of child abuse are raised, and these channels are the same for all children, whether home-schooled or not. To send inspectors to the homes of the home educated in the belief that their kids are on average more likely to be abused is as wrong as to randomly search black people in the belief that they are more likely to be carrying a knife.
-
I give up. Pointless.
-
We don't disagree that something needs to be done about abusive parents using home-schooling as a cover for child abuse. What we disagree on is whether intrusive and potentially damaging yearly home inspections of all home educators, the majority of whom are good parents, will even achieve what we want it to achieve.
Your argument reminds me of the politician's fallacy: We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
The disaster of the American No Child Left Behind is an example of well meaning but ultimately damaging reforms.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to think through more the stance I take on home inspections.
-
Not quite. I genuinely believe that although you’re probably right that the large majority of parents who opt to home school are well intentioned, responsible and up to the task, when you’re dealing with the potential disaster that could arise through those that are not, from inadequate teaching to abuse, inspection by professional agencies is essential. In fact, I’m astonished to hear it isn’t already in place. And not a little worried.
-
Not quite. I genuinely believe that although you’re probably right that the large majority of parents who opt to home school are well intentioned, responsible and up to the task, when you’re dealing with the potential disaster that could arise through those that are not, from inadequate teaching to abuse, inspection by professional agencies is essential. In fact, I’m astonished to hear it isn’t already in place. And not a little worried.
You believe that a child's learning depends on the teaching ability of their parents. The vast majority of home educated students who enter university do not have parents who are good at teaching. The students teach themselves from books and online courses. It's not that difficult. I know you find this very hard to comprehend but before you assume that home educated students need to be taught by their parents, read some accounts from real-life unschooled students.
As for abuse, I believe inspections by well meaning but underfunded and undertrained officials will achieve very very little if anything at all, but might create a 'disaster' of unintended consequences.
examples of unintended consequences
Something needs to be done about safety in cars. Airbags are something we can do. Therefore, we will install airbags. [unintended consequence of increase in child fatalities in the mid-1990s as small children were being hit by deploying airbags during collisions]
Something needs to be done about children killed by airbags. Moving the child seat to the back of the vehicle is something we can do. Therefore, let's move the child seat to the back. [unintended consequence is children forgotten in unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature conditions]
Something needs to be done about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi. Offering a bounty for every dead cobra is something we can do. Therefore, we will offer a bounty. [unintended consequence was enterprising people breeding cobras for income, such that when the reward program was scrapped and the breeders set the cobras free, the cobra population further increased]
There are orphans and mentally ill who need to be cared for. Offering $2.25 per day per mentally ill and $0.75 a day per orphan is something we can do. Therefore, we will offer the money to the Catholic Church. [unintended consequence was the church diagnosing orphans as mentally ill to receive the larger amount of money: Duplessis Orphans]
-
All of those measures have also saved lives. That's the bit you conveniently ignore. And the abuses are caused by bad people in the latter two. The unintentional consequences should not stop the intended aims, even if they need constant revision until the system is right. When things need to be done, doing nothing is still the worst option.
I do not believe that learning is entirely dependent on the parents at all. But I do believe that bad parenting can (and does) impede a child's development. It should be checked, and yes, that means from infancy too. In fact, it is checked to some degree, when children attend doctors or are admitted to hospital, and hopefully warning signs aren't missed. I'm talking about extreme situations here, although perhaps not that extreme in terms of the education part. But in the latter's case, inspections would be about guidance and help, not necessarily active intervention. The good parents should have no qualms about taking the same hit in order to protect the few who need help/intervention. Or are a few casualties worth the privacy?
-
I homeschooled my kids up until the last three years of high school. I thought it was best that they had records on file for Uni for the high school years and learn what it was like giving expected answers. Although the choice was ours as to how much Alberta curriculum to use (if any) we were required to have two visits per year by a facilitator from the home school board of our choice, from which we got a share of government funding. I considered these people assets rather than inspectors, I felt they were there to help.
-
I'm glad your view was positive.
I have to wonder how you would have felt if there had been no funding and you did not consider them assets.
Thankfully, in the UK, your right to educate your child without intrusion from whatever half-wits the Local Education Authority might send your way is enshrined in law. Provided you send a letter to them outlining how you intend to educate them, your garden gate is as far as they can get. Having said that, there have been some bullying tactics from some of the goons from the LEA, but the more savvy of parents have told them where to get off.
-
Perhaps it might add some perspective if you were to consider not automatically prejudging the authorities as goons, half-wits and bullies, and gave credence to the possibility at least, that some very small percentage of parents wishing to home school may well be just that?
-
Perhaps it might add some perspective if you were to consider not automatically prejudging the authorities as goons, half-wits and bullies, and gave credence to the possibility at least, that some very small percentage of parents wishing to home school may well be just that?
I actually did not follow that last part in bold.
-
I'm glad your view was positive.
I have to wonder how you would have felt if there had been no funding and you did not consider them assets.
Thankfully, in the UK, your right to educate your child without intrusion from whatever half-wits the Local Education Authority might send your way is enshrined in law. Provided you send a letter to them outlining how you intend to educate them, your garden gate is as far as they can get. Having said that, there have been some bullying tactics from some of the goons from the LEA, but the more savvy of parents have told them where to get off.
From experience, it is not the best idea to model a distaste and lack of respect for those in authority to one's children. Most people are doing the best they can and go into those fields because they want to make a difference. The funding was very helpful but in our case we were looking at putting a 5 year old on a bus for up to 3 hours each day so chose to Kindergarten at home for that reason alone.
-
Perhaps it might add some perspective if you were to consider not automatically prejudging the authorities as goons, half-wits and bullies, and gave credence to the possibility at least, that some very small percentage of parents wishing to home school may well be just that?
I actually did not follow that last part in bold.
My inadequate education - sorry.
I was referring to the possibility that some home-schooling parents may themselves be half-witted bullying goons in need of inspection, in contrast to what appeared to be an assumption by you that all or most of those that would be employed by LEAs are, almost by definition, similarly afflicted.
-
From experience, it is not the best idea to model a distaste and lack of respect for those in authority to one's children.
I shall be teaching my children about Albert Einstein, who said: Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
-
I was referring to the possibility that some home-schooling parents may themselves be half-witted bullying goons in need of inspection
I dare say some are, just as some parents who send their children to school are half-witted bullying goons.
For bullying, we already have laws and powers in place to deal with child abuse: we do not need prejudice concerning the home-schooled.
For schooling, the law requires that parents provide an education suitable for the child's age, and any evidence suggesting otherwise gives the courts the power to send the child to one of our underachieving schools: inspections would be costly, disproportionate, potentially damaging, and ineffective; and it's no one's business except the parents on what constitutes an education suitable for their child's age.
-
I shall be teaching my children about Albert Einstein, who said: Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
There's a difference between unthinking respect, and presupposing that incompetence is the default characteristic of all childcare professionals. Caution is no bad thing. Blanket condemnation is simply wrong.
-
I was referring to the possibility that some home-schooling parents may themselves be half-witted bullying goons in need of inspection
I dare say some are, just as some parents who send their children to school are half-witted bullying goons.
Quite. But at least their children get a break from them while they're at school, and have a better chance of not turning out like those parents.
For bullying, we already have laws and powers in place to deal with child abuse: we do not need prejudice concerning the home-schooled.
But it's okay to be prejudiced against LEAs and their employees? I've gone out of my way to stress that I don't think there would be any problem with the vast majority of home-schoolers. Which is more than can be said about your opinion of educational authority employees.
For schooling, the law requires that parents provide an education suitable for the child's age, and any evidence suggesting otherwise gives the courts the power to send the child to one of our underachieving schools: inspections would be costly, disproportionate, potentially damaging, and ineffective; and it's no one's business except the parents on what constitutes an education suitable for their child's age.
So you don't think some parents might be better equipped to judge this than others?
-
There's a difference between unthinking respect, and presupposing that incompetence is the default characteristic of all childcare professionals. Caution is no bad thing. Blanket condemnation is simply wrong.
The moment a childcare representative appears unsolicited at the door to check a child's educational progress, he is overstepping his authority and is therefore incompetent.
-
There's a difference between unthinking respect, and presupposing that incompetence is the default characteristic of all childcare professionals. Caution is no bad thing. Blanket condemnation is simply wrong.
The moment a childcare representative appears unsolicited at the door to check a child's educational progress, he is overstepping his authority and is therefore incompetent.
Is that your best shot? Obviously, that isn't going to happen with the law as it currently stands. Question is, what are you going to do if it changes? How's the bunker shaping up? ;D
-
But at least their children get a break from them while they're at school, and have a better chance of not turning out like those parents.
I dare say unschooled children know much better ways to get a break from their parents than attending school. I dare say those who attend school also know much better ways.
Why is it wrong to turn out like your parents? And why does going to school ensure that you don't?
But it's okay to be prejudiced against LEAs and their employees?
Yes, I do if they believe they have the right or the ability to check whether an unschooled child is getting a good education.
I've gone out of my way to stress that I don't think there would be any problem with the vast majority of home-schoolers. Which is more than can be said about your opinion of educational authority employees.
I have only good things to say about LEA employees who don't exceed their authority.
So you don't think some parents might be better equipped to judge this than others?
I don't think an unschooled child's education depends on anything to do with their parents.
Some who radically unschool do not force their children to learn anything they do not wish to, and yet these children manage to read entirely on their own, some before they are 5 and some as late as 11. They do this in exactly the same way they learn to speak their mother tongue by age 3.
Children can learn without having to be taught.
The girl who learned to read by 11 loves that she did this herself, and wrote a book and won poetry competitions before the age of 14.
I wonder whether an LEA inspector who would have condemned her parents as inadequate had they inspected the girl at the age of 10, still unable to read, would equally condemn every school as inadequate had they inspected the children at the age of 14, still unable to write competition-winning poetry or write a book.
-
How's the bunker shaping up? ;D
Portugal is looking really good. ;D
-
But at least their children get a break from them while they're at school, and have a better chance of not turning out like those parents.
Why is it wrong to turn out like your parents? And why does going to school ensure that you don't?
I'm getting a little bored with your constant twisting of my words, but hey ho...
Turning out like your parents is an admirable aim in the majority of cases, but certainly not all. Often (do I really have to cover my every statement by adding 'though not exclusively'?) bigotry, xenophobia, prejudice, ignorance and violence is perpetuated within families, passed down from generation to generation. Attending school does not "ensure" (not what I said) that this changes, but I'd argue that it gives the child a better change of escaping the cycle, by hearing and seeing different and diverse views of the world from others around them, rather than spending most of it's time at home with its parents. Of course (before you insist on turning that into the same kind of blanket statement you have been throwing around throughout this debate), there is also the chance that bigotry, etc., can be reinforced at school. Nothing's perfect, but both should be open to scrutiny.
But it's okay to be prejudiced against LEAs and their employees?
Yes, I do if they believe they have the right or the ability to check whether an unschooled child is getting a good education.
I disagree, on both counts. I have the right and ability to do that.
I've gone out of my way to stress that I don't think there would be any problem with the vast majority of home-schoolers. Which is more than can be said about your opinion of educational authority employees.
I have only good things to say about LEA employees who don't exceed their authority.
I doubt that very much.
So you don't think some parents might be better equipped to judge this than others?
I don't think an unschooled child's education depends on anything to do with their parents.
Some who radically unschool do not force their children to learn anything they do not wish to, and yet these children manage to read entirely on their own, some before they are 5 and some as late as 11. They do this in exactly the same way they learn to speak their mother tongue by age 3.
Children can learn without having to be taught.
The girl who learned to read by 11 loves that she did this herself, and wrote a book and won poetry competitions before the age of 14.
I wonder whether an LEA inspector who would have condemned her parents as inadequate had they inspected the girl at the age of 10, still unable to read, would equally condemn every school as inadequate had they inspected the children at the age of 14, still unable to write competition-winning poetry or write a book.
So, is it about producing exceptional children who can win competitions, or about giving your child a better education? In Diane's case, it was partly about the practicalities in order to overcome the problem of distance of the alternative that made it necessary, which I would say is probably one of the better reasons for home-schooling, when there is no real practical alternative (though even then, you still need to have the skills to do it - you appear to be arguing that no skills are needed). But what if your decision results in your child not achieving the high standards you talk of (and those are also achieved by children who attend schools, by the way)? Are you going to feel you've failed them? Worse still, is your child going to feel they've failed both themselves and you?
I remember truly enjoying the process (and sense of achievement) of learning to read at school, as well as so many other things, in the company of lots of other children my age, who were not my siblings (that was important too - and cherished; sometimes it's good to escape your siblings also). In fact, those were the years I did read books avidly. By the time I'd reached 14...or even 11, I'd abandoned books in favour of sport...and then girls. You may argue that was a poor decision, and I may well have some sympathy with that notion now that I am much older. But you'd have had the mother of all fights with me back then if you'd tried to persuade me to stay indoors and read a book rather than go outside and chase a ball...or a girl. And yet, I still managed to pass all my exams comfortably.
Of course children teach themselves to some degree. That isn't the issue here. It's about what some parents might add to that during home schooling, influencing that child's development through either their own ignorance or malicious agenda. And yes, in the worst cases, abusing their children. To say that would go on anyway, regardless of home-schooling, ignores the possible escape route that schools might supply, and the respite from the worst excesses of bad parenting that it certainly would supply. If you can tell me that there are no bad parents, then fine. But you cannot. The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite, and I have my own first hand knowledge of this, as do many people I've talked to and listened to throughout my life. It's not about how much the child can learn on its own at all - that's a complete red herring. It's about what some people may choose to 'teach' their children.
These people do exist, Malcolm, and there is a need to protect children from them, not risk exposing them to even more one-on-one time with those parents. Doesn't matter a fig that we're talking about a tiny minority of cases here. One is too many. Inspectors would be there to help (I know you think you don't need it, and perhaps you don't), not hinder. But also to hopefully detect problems that would certainly be left unchecked without their input. It's those cases, and only those that I'd be concerned about here, but it's those cases that I'd argue are very much worth the occasional inconvenience of all the good home-parenting families when the inspector calls.
-
How's the bunker shaping up? ;D
Portugal is looking really good. ;D
"Children living longer than 4 months in Portugal must attend school by law. Home education under Portuguese national curriculum only. Mandatory annual exams in Portuguese." (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics) )
-
"Children living longer than 4 months in Portugal must attend school by law. Home education under Portuguese national curriculum only. Mandatory annual exams in Portuguese." (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics) )
I love how you quote everything other than the initial word: Legal
The Portuguese Constitution (Lei Constitucional n.º 1/2005 de 12 de Agosto) states: “Parents shall possess the right and the duty to educate their children” (Article 26.5). The Statute of Private and Cooperative Education (Decreto-Lei n.º 553/80, de 21 de Novembro) defines home education as “that which is taught in the student’s home by a relative or person with whom he dwells” (Article 3.4a).
However, I was referring to Portugal as our upcoming holiday, though I dare say we'll be arguing this even there.
-
Attending school does not "ensure" (not what I said) that this changes, but I'd argue that it gives the child a better change of escaping the cycle, by hearing and seeing different and diverse views of the world from others around them, rather than spending most of it's time at home with its parents.
Firstly, I completely agree. If you can now come up with a way of determining which children have bigots for parents, I'm sure we can also agree on a solution.
So, is it about producing exceptional children who can win competitions, or about giving your child a better education?
It's about children having the right to choose the education they wish to receive without someone else telling them it's somehow wrong or inferior.
you appear to be arguing that no skills are needed [by the parents]
Yes, I am. Yes, I am completely saying that. Yes, children do not need a parent helping them to gain an education. Yes, children left to themselves naturally learn how to learn. Yes, children who are not formally 'taught' learn faster and more deeply than those who are forced to learn when they are told, where they are told, how they are told and only by someone appointed to be the spoon-feeding teacher.
So the answer there is YES.
Even if a parent with no qualifications decides to help, he can always do so more effectively by working with the child one-to-one when the child needs guidance or help than any teacher with a class of thirty to teach.
On top of that, school kills creativity. Dr. George Land and Beth Jarman were asked by NASA to help the space agency identify and develop talent, specifically within schools. The researchers discovered that American school children lose their natural-born ability to think creatively the more time they spend within the school system.
But what if your decision results in your child not achieving the high standards you talk of (and those are also achieved by children who attend schools, by the way)? Are you going to feel you've failed them? Worse still, is your child going to feel they've failed both themselves and you?
Home-educated children frequently perform better than those who attend school. School fails children as well. I don't see what your point is here.
sometimes it's good to escape your siblings also).
Again, unschooled children have just as much opportunity to escape their siblings, and at better places than school.
In fact, those were the years I did read books avidly. By the time I'd reached 14...or even 11, I'd abandoned books in favour of sport...and then girls. You may argue that was a poor decision, and I may well have some sympathy with that notion now that I am much older. But you'd have had the mother of all fights with me back then if you'd tried to persuade me to stay indoors and read a book rather than go outside and chase a ball...or a girl. And yet, I still managed to pass all my exams comfortably.
Welcome to being unschooled: the idea that you can pursue your own interests, make the decision not to read, and still pass all your exams.
It's about what some parents might add to that during home schooling, influencing that child's development through either their own ignorance or malicious agenda. And yes, in the worst cases, abusing their children. To say that would go on anyway, regardless of home-schooling, ignores the possible escape route that schools might supply, and the respite from the worst excesses of bad parenting that it certainly would supply. If you can tell me that there are no bad parents, then fine. But you cannot. The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite, and I have my own first hand knowledge of this, as do many people I've talked to and listened to throughout my life. It's not about how much the child can learn on its own at all - that's a complete red herring. It's about what some people may choose to 'teach' their children.
These people do exist, Malcolm, and there is a need to protect children from them, not risk exposing them to even more one-on-one time with those parents. Doesn't matter a fig that we're talking about a tiny minority of cases here. One is too many.
Up to here, at least on the abuse part, we completely agree. Your solution again is inspections. I have already detailed why I think this solution is costly, disproportionate, ineffective and damaging.
And again I am left wondering why "one is too many" for the unschooled but not the schooled.
Here's a better solution: have the schools and its facilities and libraries open for the unschooled, allowing them to come and go as they please. If any unschooled child does not put in a documented attendance of say an hour or so in the library or gym or canteen or playground or lesson, at least four times a year, send in the inspectors. I'd sign up on that.
Here's another solution: all children, schooled and unschooled, should be checked for abuse by trained NHS staff twice yearly until the age of say twelve. Sign me up for that one as well.
But no, the solution has to be inspectors and it has to be only for the unschooled.
-
None of this was my idea or solution. I have simply been trying to explain to you why the subject you brought to this comic strip forum is not a bad idea. In fact, despite everything you've written in response, I still think it's a good idea.
And you know, some of us actually enjoyed school, and feel it served us well. I'd have been a very different person if I'd have been home-schooled, and I'm the progeny of a highly regarded child psychologist, and a language-teaching nanny. School was often a happier place than home for me. Do not try to tell me that all parents are technically equipped for home-schooling, when some aren't even well equipped to be parents.
"And again I am left wondering why "one is too many" for the unschooled but not the schooled." Who said that? What a preposterous extrapolation.
Enjoy Portugal.
-
I have simply been trying to explain to you why the subject you brought to this comic strip forum is not a bad idea.
Actually, I brought some funny responses from a person who was against inspections. You started the argument. :)
School was often a happier place than home for me. Do not try to tell me that all parents are technically equipped for home-schooling, when some aren't even well equipped to be parents.
I have to agree with you on this point. Perhaps I should have said that all parents who wish to homeschool their children are equipped to do so.
"And again I am left wondering why "one is too many" for the unschooled but not the schooled." Who said that? What a preposterous extrapolation.
Your 'inspectors' solution never mentioned the schooled.
Enjoy Portugal.
We're going to be there for Brexit. It should be fun.
-
I saw nothing funny in any of your initial post.
So, what if those bad parents chose to home school? That’s the whole point here.
Schools are inspected all the time, and in fact the schools themselves act as ‘inspectors’ where the child’s welfare is concerned. Not perfect or flawlessly by any means, but more likely to pick up on problems than the people who might be responsible for them.
I love Brexit.
-
So, what if those bad parents chose to home school? That’s the whole point here.
Can we please always define what you mean by "bad"?
If you mean those who might abuse or indoctrinate their children, as I already said, I am with you on dealing with them, but disagree that home inspections would work. I have already given what I believe to be two better solutions.
If you mean those who are unable to provide their children with a good education, there are none, since children do not need parents in order to learn.
-
Okay, I've defined it over and over again.
Abusers, yes. Bigots, yes.
But also, regardless of your faith in children to educate themselves (which I'm less convinced by than you are, beyond a certain level and/or direction), there will always be the chance that parents will simply take it upon themselves to teach kids utter garbage. None of this is about the kids, other than what's in their best interests - it's all about the parents. And even the best-intentioned and most loving of parents could still end up mis-teaching their kids through their own ignorance. I don't think I could have done it. My eldest daughter has just been promoted to head of science at the secondary school she teaches in. She'd never have got there if either her mother or me had decided to home-school her along with her sisters.
Children need guidance from adults, otherwise they'd leave home at around 3-years of age. Parents can and do guide their children, but as they grow, most parents are very happy to hand over some of that to others trained in how to take their children further. Not all of these adults are born to the role, but some are utterly brilliant at it. I can still name you all of mine, more than 40 years on from when I last enjoyed their lessons.
-
School also taught me how to play many sports that I still love today, and how to be a team player. Attempts at a musical education failed, sadly, but not for want of me trying...and enjoying, or the efforts to teach me. School developed my artistic skills where my parents could not, and taught me how to cope with large social occasions as well as smaller ones, and have the confidence to even stand out within those contexts at times.
Not necessarily within the classrooms either. School is so much more than learning facts and practical skills. Outside the classroom (and occasionally within it), I learned how to maintain friendships, stand up to bullies, and even love. School was a grounding for the rest of my life, and an invaluable bridge between home and work.
I met many other children who became friends, some for life. I'm currently on a committee organising a reunion of my year group from '71-'77 for this October, which has attracted a lot of interest, and if the joy of the actual event comes anywhere near to the fun we've had at our committee meetings so far, it will be a huge success. It was only 5-6 years of our lives, but the memories, mostly good, are very strong for us all, and deemed worthy by many former pupils travelling from far-flung places to relive for one evening later this year.
I accept that for some, school was and is a wretched institution, for a variety of reasons. Nothing is perfect, but that in itself is an invaluable lesson for life.
-
But also, regardless of your faith in children to educate themselves (which I'm less convinced by than you are, beyond a certain level and/or direction), there will always be the chance that parents will simply take it upon themselves to teach kids utter garbage.
From Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200807/children-educate-themselves-i-outline-some-the-evidence) (emphasis is mine): As adults we do have certain responsibilities toward our children and the world's children. It is our responsibility to create safe, health-promoting, respectful environments in which children can develop. It is our responsibility to be sure that children have proper foods, fresh air, non-toxic places to play, and lots of opportunities to interact freely with other people across the whole spectrum of ages. It is our responsibility to be models of human decency. But one thing we do not have to worry about is how to educate children.
We do not have to worry about curricula, lesson plans, motivating children to learn, testing them, and all the rest that comes under the rubric of pedagogy. Lets turn that energy, instead, toward creating decent environments in which children can play. Children's education is children's responsibility, not ours. Only they can do it. They are built to do it. Our task regarding education is just to stand back and let it happen. The more we try to control it, the more we interfere.
There's more proof (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=can+children+educate+themselves) should you wish to read it.
And then here's a video to start you off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRb7_ffl2D0
-
Ah, so all this is so you can put your feet up and do bugger all at home whilst pretending you're educating your children. I get it now. ..0
Tell me something. If your child reaches up to grab a boiling pot from a stove, do you do nothing and let it learn that's not a good idea. Or do you intervene and teach it stop it, then tell it why?
No, I really don't want to see more 'proof' (the quote you posted was not proof of anything - it was a speech...and I couldn't listen to the video for more than a minute because of the background noise), because I'm not denying that children can learn many things by themselves, in childhood and well beyond (I'm still learning). Up to a point. Having the discipline to do it is another matter, when the choice to have noneducational fun is available and free. Left to my own devices, I'd have undoubtedly been better at football (but still not good enough to be a pro), and much more knowledgeable about TV cartoons. I'd almost certainly never have engaged in technical/engineering drawing, which was by far and away my favourite subject at school, and one that has helped me enormously in my chosen profession, even though that deviated from the more traditional occupations associated with the subject. I never intended to become a historian, mathematician, scientist or geographer, but I'm grateful for the little knowledge of each I was given, and enjoyed learning about things I'd never have found interesting as a child. Occasionally, the knowledge still comes in useful, although mostly at pub quizzes admittedly (but not exclusively). I would not have sought it out on my own, as a child.
But all of that aside, once again, the children are the concern, not the worry. You may tell parents till you're blue in the face to just "stand back and let it happen", but I know...and you know...that isn't how it will work.
-
Ah, so all this is so you can put your feet up and do bugger all at home whilst pretending you're educating your children. I get it now. ..0
Isn't that what you did when you sent your children to school? ..0
Tell me something. If your child reaches up to grab a boiling pot from a stove, do you do nothing and let it learn that's not a good idea. Or do you intervene and teach it stop it, then tell it why?
From Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200807/children-educate-themselves-i-outline-some-the-evidence): ... It is our responsibility to be sure that children have ... non-toxic places to play ...
Left to my own devices, I'd have undoubtedly been better at football (but still not good enough to be a pro), and much more knowledgeable about TV cartoons.
The fact that you have no doubts does not make it true. And I can't believe you would have been that stupid.
I'd almost certainly never have engaged in technical/engineering drawing, which was by far and away my favourite subject at school, and one that has helped me enormously in my chosen profession, even though that deviated from the more traditional occupations associated with the subject.
Why do you think an unschooled child cannot learn technical drawing, and at an earlier age than you did at school?
I never intended to become a historian, mathematician, scientist or geographer, but I'm grateful for the little knowledge of each I was given, and enjoyed learning about things I'd never have found interesting as a child.
So, you attended school. You never found them interesting. Gee, there must be a connection there.
I would not have sought it out on my own, as a child.
This is what school does to children.
You may tell parents till you're blue in the face to just "stand back and let it happen", but I know...and you know...that isn't how it will work.
You may tell parents till you're blue in the face to just "send them to school and let it happen", but I know...and you know...that isn't how it will work. What's it like having words put into your mouth?
-
Ah, so all this is so you can put your feet up and do bugger all at home whilst pretending you're educating your children. I get it now. ..0
Isn't that what you did when you sent your children to school? ..0
Probably...for about an hour, enjoying the peace. Then I went to work.
Tell me something. If your child reaches up to grab a boiling pot from a stove, do you do nothing and let it learn that's not a good idea. Or do you intervene and teach it stop it, then tell it why?
From Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200807/children-educate-themselves-i-outline-some-the-evidence): ... It is our responsibility to be sure that children have ... non-toxic places to play ...
Kitchens are not play areas at all. You need to teach your children this.
Left to my own devices, I'd have undoubtedly been better at football (but still not good enough to be a pro), and much more knowledgeable about TV cartoons.
The fact that you have no doubts does not make it true. And I can't believe you would have been that stupid.
Believe it. And I am far from alone in that.
I'd almost certainly never have engaged in technical/engineering drawing, which was by far and away my favourite subject at school, and one that has helped me enormously in my chosen profession, even though that deviated from the more traditional occupations associated with the subject.
Why do you think an unschooled child cannot learn technical drawing, and at an earlier age than you did at school?
Because I had no idea what technical drawing even was until my first week at secondary school. Someone had to show me.
I never intended to become a historian, mathematician, scientist or geographer, but I'm grateful for the little knowledge of each I was given, and enjoyed learning about things I'd never have found interesting as a child.
So, you attended school. You never found them interesting. Gee, there must be a connection there.
I have no idea what your sarcasm is referring to here. Teach me what it means.
I would not have sought it out on my own, as a child.
This is what school does to children.
Good job, too.
You may tell parents till you're blue in the face to just "stand back and let it happen", but I know...and you know...that isn't how it will work.
You may tell parents till you're blue in the face to just "send them to school and let it happen", but I know...and you know...that isn't how it will work. What's it like having words put into your mouth?
Again, that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. None at all.
-
Kitchens are not play areas at all. You need to teach your children this.
Do you seriously, seriously believe any parent would let his or her children play or learn in places that are not safe? The quote from Psychology Today states quite clearly that parents should provide a safe environment in which children can learn by themselves.
Believe it. And I am far from alone in that.
Are you saying that school left you so clueless that you still would prefer to play football and watch cartoons than study? How is that an endorsement of school?
Because I had no idea what technical drawing even was until my first week at secondary school. Someone had to show me.
Are you saying that by secondary school your schooling had stripped of the initiative and desire to find out what kind of things you could learn?
I have no idea what your sarcasm is referring to here. Teach me what it means.
Can you not see an overarching theme in your anecdotes and observations of school that suggests the whole experience might have retarded your progress? Can you not see that to pick up merely a 'little knowledge' of mathematics, geography, history and the sciences, a huge portion of what the school is trying to teach you, is hardly an endorsement for attending school?
You may tell parents till you're blue in the face to just "stand back and let it happen", but I know...and you know...that isn't how it will work.
What I know is that countless families who have radically unschooled have raised well-adjusted children who have frequently gone on to achieve much more than most of those who attend school.
-
Do you seriously, seriously believe...?
Are you saying that...?
Are you saying...?
Can you not see...?
Four stupid extrapolations in a row is quite possibly a new record, even for you, Mincey.
What I know is that countless families who have radically unschooled have raised well-adjusted children who have frequently gone on to achieve much more than most of those who attend school.
Yes, but there all rubbish at football.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE KIDS!!!
-
Home Schooling can work - so can public schooling - so can private schooling - so can charter schools - so can tutoring - so can boarding schools - so can unschooling. That is why people pick what works for them if they are fortunate enough to be able to financially and geographically have any choice (most people don't have a choice) - everyone thinks what they are doing is best for their kids.
Live and let live.
-
Four stupid extrapolations in a row is quite possibly a new record, even for you, Mincey.
It just seemed more polite than Nice anecdote. What's your point?
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE KIDS!!!
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PARENTS!!!
-
everyone thinks what they are doing is best for their kids.
Tarks might have something to say on that.
-
everyone thinks what they are doing is best for their kids.
Tarks might have something to say on that.
No, if anyone is doing it for anything other than that reason, then they should not be doing it. Trouble is, there are some who may think that, but whose motivations are different, and it's those cases that would be the biggest concern.
-
No, if anyone is doing it for anything other than that reason, then they should not be doing it.
And anyone who is doing so for the kids is going to provide a better education for the child than any school.
-
Four stupid extrapolations in a row is quite possibly a new record, even for you, Mincey.
It just seemed more polite than Nice anecdote. What's your point?
You wouldn't understand. Well, you've shown no sign of doing so this far, anyway.
My points were... children need adults to guide them, both in terms of their own safety and education (all forms). And if you let a child (in this case, me) do what it wants, whenever it wants, it will chose fun over education and learning every time. And that I'd never have chosen to do technical drawing because it sounds boring, and not as much fun as playing football or watching telly. I also picked up more than a "little knowledge" of the subjects I went on to study at O-Grade (Scottish O-level) exam level, and a lot more at those I took to Higher (A-level) standard. I passed all eight of the former (all 'A's) and all five of the latter - enough qualifications to get a place in most universities in the UK at the time. Instead, I took a job as a sub-editor on The Beano comic, and six years later began my cartooning career now in its 36th year. Had I been home-schooled by my eminently-qualified parents, I'm absolutely certain I would not have been allowed to make the same choices, and I'd have been a very different character by the end of it. Perhaps you might have seen the prospect of me being a doctor or a lawyer as a more desirable career, but through my own choices (yes, I got to make them...even at school!), I've not only had a successful career in cartooning, but a whole lot more fun that I'd have had as either a doctor or a lawyer (other occupations were available). I'm not for one second decrying either (or any other) occupation, but I know I would never have been cut out for them.
It would be easy to dismiss the schooling I had as irrelevant to my life beyond it. I needed only Higher English to get my comic job, and that was only a technicality (I'd already got the job based on my application letter). I didn't need my Higher Art to be able to draw cartoons. But I don't regret anything I learned at school, and in particular those out of class social aspects that I outlined earlier, and which led me to the meeting I had this morning at my old secondary school (first time in over 40 years), in order to discuss our forthcoming reunion. If the school 'retarded my progress', I can only thank them for it.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE KIDS!!!
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PARENTS!!!
[/quote]
Yes, in this debate, I think it is.
-
No, if anyone is doing it for anything other than that reason, then they should not be doing it.
And anyone who is doing so for the kids is going to provide a better education for the child than any school.
Horlicks! (see above)
-
If the school 'retarded my progress', I can only thank them for it.
For the record, I believe school retarded my progress, and that is not something for which I will ever be thankful. I wish I had been taught to think for myself much much earlier. As impressive as your grades are, statistics show that the unschooled and home schooled attain similar grades much earlier.
Yes, in this debate, I think it is.
No, in this debate, I do not, unless you're on about the already mutually agreed need to prevent actual child abuse, and for that I believe we already have the police.
-
If the school 'retarded my progress', I can only thank them for it.
For the record, I believe school retarded my progress, and that is not something for which I will ever be thankful. I wish I had been taught to think for myself much much earlier. As impressive as your grades are, statistics show that the unschooled and home schooled attain similar grades much earlier.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but although school does negatively affect some people more than others, it also does produce very high achievers, and is held in fond regard by many (as I'm currently finding out - the lows as well as the highs). But my reservations about home-schooling are not about the standards achieved by the children in education, as we've discussed many times. However, this particular debate necessarily focuses on the parents, as it is their ability to take on their children's schooling that would be the only reason for any kind of inspection. And whilst I'm happy to accept that most will do a perfectly fine job of it, there's no way you can convince me that all will - just as in schools there are good and bad teachers. And my fear is the advantages a home-schooled child will gain from one-on-one teaching by a good home-schooler, will conversely be pretty catastrophic for the children of the bad or incompetent home-schooler. Hence, I think, the desirability of inspections and help from the professionals.
Yes, in this debate, I think it is.
No, in this debate, I do not, unless you're on about the already mutually agreed need to prevent actual child abuse, and for that I believe we already have the police.
Soooooooooooooo...are you saying that..............we should all be having regular home inspections by the police? [watches as Mince turns purple]
No, I'm not just talking about them (see above).
-
And my fear is the advantages a home-schooled child will gain from one-on-one teaching by a good home-schooler, will conversely be pretty catastrophic for the children of the bad or incompetent home-schooler. Hence, I think, the desirability of inspections and help from the professionals.
Something needs to be done. This is something. Therefore we shall do this.
The only incompetent parents are the ones who force a curriculum on their child, either by teaching them at home or by sending the child to school, and even they do not require or deserve inspectors.
The courts do have the ability to send to school anyone they believe is not getting an education suitable for the child's age, and quite rightly in my opinion: after all, even incompetent schools are better than no education at all because of an unsuitable learning environment. How the courts define the meaning of the phrase 'suitable for the child's age' is perhaps a cause for concern, but I would be happier with there being a court process than merely an inspector with his own biased definition of the phrase.
Soooooooooooooo...are you saying that..............we should all be having regular home inspections by the police? [watches as Mince turns purple]
As I said earlier, in response to your point about children being abused, I am all for regular inspections of children by NHS doctors at a surgery or hospital, but certainly not by some overworked and underpaid inspector.
-
Something needs to be done. This is something. Therefore we shall do this.
Gimme a break! It's only "something" because you don't like it. I've not spent the last five pages debating the value of just doing 'something'. Forget the sloganeering, and stop being such a condescending arse.
The only incompetent parents are the ones who force a curriculum on their child, either by teaching them at home or by sending the child to school, and even they do not require or deserve inspectors.
I disagree - on every count. I have no problem with curriculums, unless they are particularly ill-conceived. Incompetence is more about not knowing what you're doing than knowingly doing something wrong. But either way, where the welfare of children is concerned, both personal and educational, I see nothing wrong with help from professionals, and that includes inspections where they might assist.
...I would be happier with there being a court process than merely an inspector with his own biased definition of the phrase.
Why would it be his (or her) "own biased definition"? This is your own biased definition of what would surely be a carefully regulated and standardised process, carried out by trained professionals.
Soooooooooooooo...are you saying that..............we should all be having regular home inspections by the police? [watches as Mince turns purple]
As I said earlier, in response to your point about children being abused, I am all for regular inspections of children by NHS doctors at a surgery or hospital, but certainly not by some overworked and underpaid inspector.
More emotive supposition. What makes you automatically assume they'd be either over-worked or underpaid. Perhaps if you were a little less eager to brand all of these people you see as determined to interfere in your business in such negative terms, you may come to realise that some are good at their job, and furthermore, welcomed by those they assist.
-
you may come to realise that some are good at their job
So you want these inspectors to look for abuse and for signs of a lack of education. And only some are good at their job? Nothing like pot-luck incompetence when someone is there to 'assess' your child.
-
Maybe you’d be lucky and get a good one. Then you can put words in his (or her) mouth.
Enough already.
-
So glad that my 12 years of home schooling experience brought some peace to this quarrel LOL