I home educate my 3 children

[LilyTuesday]

As the subject title says! I have found myself answering lots of questions over the years, once people find out we home Ed our children… but they are probably being polite and not saying how they really feel about the idea of choosing to never send a child to school…. So AMA if you’ve ever been curious!

Universities do take the same approach of requiring qualifications. Home ed kids who get into university without qualifications have done access courses, meant for bright children who have not so far lived up to their potential.

Funnyface36 Just to clarify

1. you are against home ed where the parent believes it to be in the child's best interest.
2. you approve of home ed in situations where a child has a special need - arguably where the family is in most need of support and yet has been let down by the state.

So, home education bad when in interest of the child. Home education good when family in need abandoned by the state.

Are you sure that's what you want to say? This thread has proved how ill thought out some opinions are. I love home ed but let's be clear - the fact families who desperately need support are forced into it is a bloody disgrace.

@NoSweat "So much time is wasted. My children do two hours 'work' a day - the rest is enrichment."

Yes, my kid said something similar. They decided to try school for the first time in Y5 to see what it was like, staying there for a term before returning to home ed. I asked them whether they felt they learned more at school or via home ed.

"It's about the same," they said, "except at school it took the whole day to learn it." This was one of the main reasons they came out again: they missed having all that extra time in which to see friends, do hobbies, play, and relax. During their few months at school, day-long playdates went out the window. Favourite toys lay untouched. Reading, previously an indulgence to enjoy at will, became a chore crammed into a busy day for the purpose of entering a satisfactory number of daily minutes in a reading log for the teacher's approval.

From the learner's perspective, school is hugely inefficient. Perhaps that wasn't always seen as much of a drawback. I imagine that in a society without the internet, where books were expensive and few people were literate, it made more sense to invest hours at school gleaning whatever titbits of education you were lucky enough to get. Learners' time was less valuable than the scarce educational resources shared between them. But where those resources are readily available, perhaps that model of education makes less sense.

I have abundant experience, and many universities only take into consideration GCSEs taken in one sitting, not only that, but even if they don't, they rely on schools having done so when enrolling for A levels.

90% of home educated children coming into the classroom cause disruption and have far lower standards of behaviour, achievement, and self discipline, not all of them, some are fine, but most have huge difficulty adjusting to normal social interactions.

I accept home educated children on enrolment, as I do many other disadvantaged students, refugees, non English speakers, looked after children, children with MH problems, etc. Schools don't turn children away becasue they are disadvantaged ( well, ofsted tries to make us, but generally we don't)

However, there are such things as entry requirements, and getting top grades by taking 2 GCSEs a year for 5 years is VERY easy, and does not meet basic entry requirements, which for A levels in normally around a minimum of 7 GCSEs of 5 or over, taken in one sitting, within the last 6 months

That is not to say that a home educated student can't take a lower level course, such as BTEC level 1 or 2, if they can't do A levels, but you do need to keep in mind that students in the UK have 3 years maximum when they can access state 6th form education, and many home educated students start late anyway, so they may well be cut off from any opportunity to study at level 3, and move on to university. That doesn't mean never, you can obviously do foundations years, and pay for far more years privately.

In practice, more than 3/4 of home educated students who try to enrol for A levels in our local schools will be placed on level 1 or level 2 courses instead. If they are 16, on a level 2 course and very hard working, dedicated and academically able, they can then move on to A levels the following year

Nimbostratus100 - 90% of home ed children you've encountered cause disruption in the classroom - really? Could you contextualise this, what sort of numbers are we talking about? How many have you taught?

My second question would be to ask why these children were home educated - was it elective home education or are you talking about children who were off-rolled by a previous school because of bullying, behaviour or special needs? If we're talking about off-rolled children then that's a different matter, these are children who have been badly let down by the schooling system so clearly there will be issues reintegrating into that environment. Again context is everything but as always with school, no-one has the time or effort to scratch below the surface.

Secondly, when you talk of 'normal social interactions' do you mean sitting down all day and being banned from talking to those around you? Do you mean mixing only with people born in the same year? Do you mean the normalisation of bullying and sexual harassment? The fact that you think interactions at school are in any way normal shows how jaded you are. You do realise that when adults have bad dreams, very often they feature their school experiences - even decades later and even people who consider themselves to have had a 'good' experience. The fact that several teachers have come on here oblivious to the failings of the school system and of the children it fails is depressing - no interest in learning and doing better.

Stop and consider for a moment all those children, generation after generation that the school system has failed - then come back and criticise the parents who make sacrifices to do better.

I cant answer exactly how many home educated children I have taken into the classroom, I have taught for decades, and for much of that time I was doing enrolments at one of the UKs largest and most inclusive sixth forms. - A place people come when they have been turned down by other schools! So probably less than a thousand, but I'm not sure how much less.

Maybe 800 or so? And more than half in the sixth form, most of the rest at year 7 or over.

And by home educated I mean home educated, not off rolled, and by normal social interactions, I mean normal social interactions, that you would see between children or adults at work. It is hard to give examples, without feeling like I was belittling students, but I am trying - there is a common theme of lack of self awareness, for example, or immaturity when managing minor medical mishaps.

Of course, no caring teacher it blind to the problems that occur in schools, or disinterested in improving children's experience. Most children have every opportunity to learn in schools, some don't, due to lack of support or disruption - I have seen those circumstances and I hate them. Some children have better experience at home

What I am complaining about on this thread in particular, is the impression some posters are giving that you can take your child out, load them up on individual care, personalised experiences and individual control and preferences, then try and slot them seamlessly back into society without any understanding or knowledge of their actual situation compared to their peers.

I have seen the results and it is heart breaking.

We know, for example, that taking a break in maths learning leaves you unable to continue the momentum through A level, so imagine sitting down with a previous maths genius, GCSE at 12, further maths at 13 maybe, several years "unschooled" assuming that they can walk into A levels and being turned down. They are gutted. Their parents are gutted. This happens every single year, in different subjects, to some home educated children who have taken their GCSEs too spread out and too early. I have had some particularly gruelling interviews with parents hysterical and begging... when they realise we were their child's last chance, and we are saying no.

And there are many other ways that the reinterrogation just doesn't work, and never works - don't forget that school is primarily a place of preparation for work, and failing prepare for the world of work is a major life long disadvantage. The whole mindset can be missing - great if you are going to be an artist or entrepreneur, but in reality, I only know 2 ex- home educated children that entirely went their own way as adults - and I know many on benefits for life

There is a cost to home education, and it can be lifelong disadvantage. For many it isn't. as long as parents are properly informed - but some of the information on this thread is just wrong.

and top of this list of advice that is wrong is getting GCSEs "under your belt" early

What about negative interactions? I think one of the benefits of school is that it teaches resilience because a student won't get on with everyone at school and there are bound to be negative interactions at some point. However, these help the students to learn important life lessons and grow. If home Ed kids' socialising is carefully curated, as it seems to be, how will they experience these challenges and learn from them?

There's no point engaging with Nimbostratus, her posts are such nonsense.

There are such a small number of home ed children in the UK, and a large proportion of them have additional needs - and yet this poster is seeing 100s who have taken multiple top grade GCSEs over several years and then fallen foul of her 6th Form's very specific entry requirements of needing to have taken all their GCSEs within 6 months? Not a chance this is true.

I know a lot of home edders in real life, and many more through facebook groups, and can't think of a single family who has had this experience.

This just shows your ignorance, doesn't it, I have been teaching for decades, and have taught in one of the countries biggest sixth forms, where many people apply if they can't get into their choices, because we have such a wide programme we can almost always find a course for everybody.

Of course, you dont like what I am saying, so by all means, stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes and shout Nu-nu-nu-nu as much as you like, if it makes you happier than attempting to understand the actual truth

I'm not sure what 'carefully curated' means?

Experiencing awful things doesn't make you stronger, it damages you. School children harm themselves and die due to bullying and exam pressures.
Resilience comes from positive experiences, high self worth and secure childhoods. You're then about to tolerate bad experiences and bounce back.

No one can avoid challenges or negative experiences in life (relationships with friends, family members, neighbours, other children at clubs or groups, frustrations from things not working out the way you want). Of course home ed doesn't mean everything is perfect all the time and there are always going to be challenges and set backs. But there isn't any benefit to being put into a situation where you experience high levels of daily stress, fear, bullying and so on - that causes mental health problems in children, not resilience.

Sure you do.

As a home edder who took their vulnerable autistic child out of high school you couldn't be further from the truth here.

Negative interactions are responsible for the mental health problems of many young people.

Interesting thread

Yes, those figures just don't add up. I was ready to believe that MAYBE she worked in a quirky sixth form with peculiar entry requirements - they do exist - until she came out with this figure of having taught 800 home educated pupils. Over 20 years that would be 40 a year. Even in a busy area, there just aren't that many of them.

Highly competitive uni courses do sometimes care about applicants having taken several A levels in one sitting. With GCSEs it is rarely an issue. We home ed parents are very well networked locally and nationally. If spreading out exams over several sittings were a problem, most of us would know and few of us would be doing it.

I don't believe you are telling the truth. What you're saying is so extreme and bears no relation to any of my personal experiences. All this hysterical stuff and incapacitated children - it's simply not what happens unless there were already additional needs. Home educated children are just children, you probably couldn't pick them out of a line up in reality but you're describing them as if they have three heads. I don't believe you are who you say you are at all.

You lost me at 90 percent cause disruption in the classroom. Utter bollocks.

It is quite obviously a load of rubbish. She might have met a few home ed kids over the years but the number etc don’t add up.
Also who would believes she keeps in contact with all of these past students and in such a close capacity that she knows that they are now living on benefits for life? I certainly don’t stay in contact with my college tutors and if I did we wouldn’t be discussing my finances!

Nimbostratus100 - integrate them back into society? Home educated children are in society - they're very much active in their communities, the very communities children are removed from and institutionalised in schools where they're spoon fed information and expected to regurgitate back. It's not real, deep learning and there's nothing independent about it.

I'm truly staggered that you've encountered 800 home ed children - truly staggered. I've only been home educating for a decade - in London where yes there are many home educating families but goodness 800 coming through one college/ local authority? Really? Until recently it was fairly unusual so I'm gobsmacked if this is true. I wonder too why your experience is so different to mine and others who have commented. I wonder if there is something specific to your area that a) there are so many and b) that there home ed experience seems so poor. Sounds like someone within the college should be doing some research.

Incidentally, one of my children went to school for a while and was told by the teacher that home ed children came to school unable to read and write. Turns out she'd never actually met any (probably like some posting here!) Within a couple of weeks my child had the measure of the school system - got into all the top sets, so none of concerns about her very significant learning difficulties were addressed. She was completely bored and her needs weren't addressed so we removed her after a year and had her privately assessed for her learning difficulty.

The point being, as a clever child, she could game the system and get top marks and that's all school cared about as opposed to actual learning.

We know, for example, that taking a break in maths learning leaves you unable to continue the momentum through A level, so imagine sitting down with a previous maths genius, GCSE at 12, further maths at 13 maybe, several years "unschooled" assuming that they can walk into A levels and being turned down. They are gutted. Their parents are gutted. This happens every single year, in different subjects, to

So many different levels of batshittery here.

What maths geniuses have you come across who were known to be geniuses at 13, took their exams early, oddly chose to be unschooled for several years and then were devastated because they were 'unable to contribute the momentum' to so much as study Maths for A Level? I don't believe for a moment that this happened once, never mind to the degree that you can make off the cuff assertions about what 'we know'. Children who are highly gifted at Maths and learn at home are highly unlikely to have abandoned the subject after sitting it early. Even if it happened once, which is unlikely, it certainly wouldn't be something you'd witness regularly. You then proceed to claim this has happened in other subjects too, frequently!

It depends where you live. In some areas which have a significant proportion of people from a certain background, there will be specific activities or shared study groups. For example, some of my Muslim friends share a tutor and their kids study together several half-days a week. They also dip into the more general sports groups, museum visits, etc alongside the wider home ed community. Likewise, there are Christian study groups and groups for Christians to socialise with like-minded families, and those kids also participate in the mainstream activities.

More informally, people may gravitate toward others in similar circumstances even though the group isn't actually exclusive. I used to organise a pub lunch meet which consisted almost entirely of kids with autism - it just happened that way, and then it became known as a comfortable place for families with autism. But it wasn't an "autism" group IYSWIM; in fact there's no autism in my own family.

I know a couple of families who speak the same language, who are keen to hang out together in order to help keep the children's language skills alive. I'm sure it's also pleasant for the parents to discuss the usual expat topics and relax by speaking their native language together. But they go to activities in the wider home ed community too.

In the home ed community in my area, white and Asian families are well represented, but Black families are very underrepresented compared with their numbers in the overall population. I imagine there's a vicious circle whereby people are less likely to join a group where they are the odd ones out. However, there is an increasing recognition that the school system here doesn't serve Black children (especially boys) very well, because teachers' expectations of them are low and they are more often expected to be troublemakers, and of course subjects such as history are still taught with a colonial white bias. So there is a small but growing movement among Black parents to provide their kids with a more positive educational environment by home educating.

Economic background: I live in a mixed area. Many of the home ed families I know are well off and have one parent who doesn't need to work in order to make ends meet, but the majority are middle or low income two-parent families with one parent working full-time and the other working part-time, or single-parent families where the parent works part-time. Some parents don't work due to being disabled, retired, or a carer, so in those cases home ed doesn't affect their finances as they wouldn't be working anyway.

Outcomes: I think it was Harriet Pattison who did the most research on that, and found home ed kids in the UK outperformed their schooled peers significantly on academic measures. However, much as I would like to wave that around, I think it should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. IMO it's impossible to draw conclusions from that, because home educating families are self-selecting. For example, it could be argued that parents who are most involved with their kids' education are the very ones who are willing to undertake home education, and that the children of such parents would have outperformed their peers even if they'd gone to school. Kids who are not average are more often ill-served by the school system, so one might expect that children with SEN will be overrepresented in the home ed population... but by the same token, very bright children tend to be bored at school and may be overrepresented in the home ed population, which would also skew results.

But there was one snippet from her research which did intrigue me. She took socioeconomic factors and parental education into account so as to compare like with like. For example, home educated children of rich parents with PhDs had better outcomes than school educated children of rich parents with PhDs. But what interests me is that she found a far bigger difference in the lower socioeconomic groups. In other words, home educated children of poor parents who themselves left school without passing any exams had MUCH better outcomes than the school educated children of poor parents who themselves left school without passing any exams. This seems to give the lie to the idea that some parents "shouldn't be allowed" to home educate because their children would learn better at school.

Interestingly, our friend nimbostratus is on another thread claiming that she doesn't even attempt to cover the entire syllabus for exams with her students but does expect children to teach themselves the bits they don't get around to. She claims this isn't a problem, nor is it shocking, and blames disruptive children for the failure among other passing the buck excuses (struggling to create a secure learning environment clearly).

You know what, at home we do the whole syllabus and we enjoy it. We don't have hysterics, we don't run out of time and we own our responsibilities. We get the right help where we need it and we actually cater to SEND rather than using it as an excuse. We don't leave our kids behind and hope private tutors will make up for our shortcomings.

Interesting @Saracen. I think similar has been found amongst schooled children - the biggest predictors of success are how involved the parents are and the home learning environment, rather than how good the school/teachers are.

I'll say the same as I said on the other thread

I know what happens in these circumstances

You clearly don't

I have decades more experience and thousands of students more contacts,

Learn and understand, or remain ignorant, its nothing to me