to wonder why teachers are so sure school is better than home Ed for all children?

[IceBeing]

An acquaintance is thinking of removing her 5 yo from school as he has started self-harming due to anxiety about going.

The school seem to be all over themselves to tell the parent that there is no way home ed would be preferable to carrying on in school.

What makes schools so very certain on this point and what would it take for a school to admit a child might be better off being taught at home for a spell or even entirely?

dino oh it definitely bothers me...I don't want a mini-me from my DD!

On the other hand she currently massively into medicine and bandages etc. because one of her home ed friend's Dad is a paramedic....they all spend 3 hours this afternoon taking apart a first aid kit.

What the world really needs at the moment is less people aspiring to be reality TV stars....I imagine that meme is running like wild fire through schools with no end in sight.

Op: YABU on several levels.

Schools acknowledging that their provision might be suboptimal is turkeys voting for Christmas. Occasionally, a teacher or a school might acknowledge that child X will be better off out of school than in it (or, indeed, put pressure on the parents to remove child X rather than them working out how to look after them as they would need - just look on the special needs forums). But that's inevitably going to be the exception rather than the rule. Like a dentist advising someone to go all Weston A. Price in their dental care rather than down the conventional flouride route.

Also, YABU to say "schools" when what you mean is "some individuals in one school that I have heard of". Because that opens you up to accusations of generalising, and allows other people to leap in with counter examples.

We home educate, by the way. I keep my children in the cupboard under the stairs 24/7, never allow them to socialise with other people, teach them only from WHSmith workbooks in the topic areas of my own expertise, and intend never to plan ahead so that they will gain the qualifications they need in order to realise their dreams. It's a matter of principle.

Dino

It was just as hard for the teachers as it was for dh and I to try and instil an interest in something she wasn't passionate about.
Why waste their time and the teachers if they aren't interested.
For us it was never a case of providing a broad education, we just facilitated the subjects she was interested in.
The comments of "aren't you worried she'll be behind" used to make us all laugh. Because, how can you be behind in something you don't subscribe to?

omm

'Teachers know that it would be impossible to offer the depth and breadth of the curriculum, and the social experiences'

I'm not sure this is a given to be honest because, well, it is untrue and because many teachers Home Educate because they know this to be untrue.

The academics of the school curriculum (if that is the path a parent choses to go) can be taught in a fraction of the time it would be taught in school because it is done 1:1 and within timeframes that match the childs grasping of a concept not the schools timetable, and without the time-wasting transitioning, which leaves hours and hours and HOURS for all kids of social opportunities and educational experiences that a school could offer plus tones more.

'Schools are staffed by professionals who have studied education as an academic discipline and have extensive practical experience with hundreds of different children and their needs in dozens of different situations.'

Many parents have studied education as an academic discipline, and many have just read extremely widely and networked. None of them want anything other than their best for their children after all.

I think it is safe to say too, that the majority of parents of children with SEN who have decided to HE have done so after witnessing appalling lack of academic discipline within schools in the field, not to mention the refusal to challenge illegal and corrupt policies and advice given to them by Local Authorities.

I think that it's a generalisation to say that teachers and schools are automatically against home education-although some are because they can't think outside the system in which they operate.

If it suits the child and the parents are willing to put in full commitment to supporting the child's educational, social and emotional needs it can be great. Some children have a very unhappy time in school and their needs are often poorly met.

On the other hand its not very helpful for home educators to take an anti-school stance. Some kids thrive in school. It does seem a bit goady to be discussing HE when visiting schools.

Unfortunately some parents with their own social difficulties or even abusive parents do choose home education. Its naive of home educators who are doing a good job not to acknowledge this. The children in these families can be very vulnerable because they are not regularly seen by adults outside the family. I understand what some teachers are saying about safe guarding issues.
This doesn't mean that home education is in itself a safeguarding issue.

'A wide social circle of children from a large range of backgrounds, visits from 'experts' in their field, opportunities to learn in creative ways rather than from a text book and to participate in group activities, not least of course the opportunity to learn to become autonomous individuals away from their parents.'

This is exactly what most of my HE friends say is the REASON they HE, because this is what THEY can offer their children that schools cannot.

I wonder if you have been to any HE groups or sessions. I have and am continually astounded at the things children are 'allowed' to participate in or do, both in terms of activities I would consider fairly risky (and I am not too risk adverse myself), plus the confidence that the children have to access the learning they seek from whoever it is that can provide it. It can come across as quite precocious but backgrounds never seem to be barriers to social opportunities and learning.

'The children in these families can be very vulnerable because they are not regularly seen by adults outside the family.'

That isn't my experience at all. The children are less vulnerable than when they attend school and only really see very few adults each week and when they do it is with a ratio of 30:1. My child spent regular time each week with at least 11 different adults last year in groups of between 1 and 25. That doesn't include the 3 residentials he attended and the fortnightly ENT visits.

I don't think its too harmful for a five year old to be home educated as a short term measure. If you wanted your five year old to return to school because home education was not working the LEA could invoke fair access protocal to force a primary to go over 30 in a class. A short period of home education might be an effective way to get a different school because most LEAs hate home educators and want the children back in school.

Teachers may see home education as rejection of what they see as important. If you think about it someone would not work in a school if they did not believe in them.

'No one adult is knowledgeable about all things. If you are HE beyond primary school age there is surely going to be a point where you either restrict your child's learning to the things you know about or rely on text book teaching.'

Only if you are unimaginative and not resourceful. The teacher as facilitator is the most common perspective held by HEers. Many parents don't actually DO much of the teaching themselves at all. Plus many parents like teachers believe that a good teacher can teach anything. It is in the interest of HEing parents to make certain that they are a good teacher/facilitator and so they spend huge amounts of energy making certain they are, for their child.

Far from over-emphasising the parent's interests and influence, home education can privilege the child's interests and autonomy in a way that school never can. Children learn best when they are allowed to form their own learning goals, studying what they're interested in. In this context no teacher does more than facilitate, offer a little guidance and generally share the wonder. A good home educating parent, at least in the UK, is usually doing so because they want a self-motivated, engaged learner. Consequently they are particularly tuned into the importance of stepping back in the manner described. This is absolutely impossible to achieve in a class of thirty that must be pitched at thirty children, be safe for thirty children, target the interests of the majority and progress at the speed of the middle of the bunch regardless of one child's aptitude and interests. The truth is that a child is lucky if they get to ask the teacher two questions in half an hour. They're lucky if a significant portion of learning time isn't spent being distracted by others, listening to discipline in which teachers try fruitlessly to diminish the influences of socialisation, and generally hang about. A home educated child can study physics, go swimming, build a bonfire with other home-ed kids, have a French lesson and still be fresh for two extra curricular activities in the late afternoon. And likely as not they will want to return to the physics after tea. I know it's not for every parent or every child and of course there are major drawbacks with both systems, but there are significant advantages on both sides (I obviously haven't tried to be balanced here!).

I'm in a lot of teachers groups on social media, particularly primary.

I am stunned by the effort many of them have gone to, to make their classrooms and timetables as exciting as possible for the children who are starting this week. Most of them seemed to have spent way more than the school budget would allow. After days and in some cases weeks of design and preparation with their children's targets in mind it would be ridiculous to think that they aren't anything other than nervously keen to get started with the year ahead, with full belief in their ideas and methods and desperate to achieve the outcomes they have been trained to believe the children need.

In HE houses all over the country, many parents are also doing this.

Should have said that there is time for the bonfire (or cello practice, whatever floats your boat) because it takes a fraction of the time to learn the physics with the teacher to yourself.

Queenstarlight you have missed my point.
I agree that a majority of home educated kids socialise and are seen by adults all the time.
The concern I expressed was for a small minority where the parents have complex issues of their own or are deliberately abusive. These children can easily "disappear".
Some home educating parents get very defensive and refuse to acknowledge that this can happen.

'Some home educating parents get very defensive and refuse to acknowledge that this can happen.'

Because the evidence shows that whether it 'can' or 'cannot', it doesn't.

Where children who do not attend school have been found to have been abused, there are very long lists of professionals who have been involved and seen the children and family for a considerable time.

starlight I am on those groups as well. The effort is incredible and the effects are beautiful. However (and I feel dreadful saying this) - is this going to make much difference to the way the children learn? I know student teachers are forced to survive on three hours sleep per night to achieve these results, but I'm not sure that it really goes very far to help children learn. One teacher had spent ages sewing bits of felt together to make pen pots. Lovely. But doesn't make a difference to what the child will write. Another decoupaged story characters onto the teacher's chair for story time. Lovely, but completely unnecessary if she's good at reading aloud. I could go on. It's great that they're engaged but pouring over resources like these are not enough and don't necessarily indicate that successful learning is taking place. If they are taking a toll on the teacher's ability to be truly creative in her interactions and lesson planning, I would question if all this room dressing is a good idea at all.

starlight I agree with your point about home educated children potentially falling through the cracks. But I thought going to school was about getting an education, rather than social services keeping track of children's general well-being? Are teachers aware that they are expected to search out abuse in the home and report it? Or do social services have a vague hope that particularly bad cases will be so obvious that 'someone at school will notice'? This needs clarification and debate, in my opinion. If there is a need for every child in the country to be evaluated, that needs to happen satisfactorily, whether at school or somewhere better suited for it. But the idea that you cannot keep your child at home because the government wants to have your kid in a place where they can keep an eye is interesting. Because they're not very good at it.

I take it that in fact this child is your dd not that of an acquaintance? Otherwise I'm not sure I get the constant reference to 'we' or why you are so involved.

Children are individuals. There is no one size fits all approach. HE works for some but not others.

I'm not sure why pulling this child out of school to HE seems to be the first point of call?

Just for God's sake please do right by the child unlike the parent of the poor child who has just started in my class and is years behind her peers. She's very bright but hasn't been taught properly and is going to have to work her little socks off to catch up. HE has not helped her (no other reasons for HE other than they ''felt like it'')

'Why would a child who struggled to make friends at school be any more capable of making friends in a HE scenario?'

Less conformity is expected outside of school, therefore it is a more tolerant environment for those who find it difficult to fit in. Groups can be chosen for their relative success at giving the child socialisation practice at the level and demand they can cope with, and built up.

Non-school activity leaders are more likely than teachers to listen to parents about what accommodations need to be made to enable successful integration of a child with difficulties AND ACT UPON THEM. Feedback is likely to be more readily available and partnership more balanced.

I was a teacher pre kids and considered (and decided against) home ed in our case. Id dispute all teachers are anti it! I found as a college teachers some home ed kids that came in struggled and I also would prefer to send to school for secondary. We trialed school with home ed as a back up and my children love school, have learnt so much and they miss it in the summer. We still do all the national trust, outdoorsy stuff , cooking reading too!

I know homesschooling families and ill firmly sit on the fence. Im not anti homeschooling, especially if your child doesnt "fit" school as mine seem to, but equally get irritated that homeschoolers sometimes make out it is superior in all cases too. Rather its different, both with pros and cons. A bit like living in the town or country. Both have things that appeal/dont appeal to people but either may provide a good experience.

My DS's teachers were very on board with me HEing. His class teacher told me I was making the right decision and wished us all the best.

I have a family member and a friend who are teachers and they are slowly coming around to the idea.

DS2 will be attending school when he turns 5 as I think he will love school and doesn't have the issues that DS1 has.

I think it's hard for people, especially teachers, to get their head round as it isn't the norm. I certainly never knew anyone who was HE when I was growing up.

'The financial of home education must be enormous.'

It cost me the same as AWPU. I have 3 children so though our mortgage is 2/3 our income, childcare for them would be more than any salary I could bring in.

HEers I have met are some of them extremely creative. Most have downsized considerably. Some only ever live in the cheapest of temporary accommodation with the kids sleeping in the living room. The do deals, offer services for accommodation and equipment. Some live on communes, some off the grid.

I really don't think finances have much to do with it at all. I have met a substantial number of HEers that do it precisely because they believe that schools are set up to produce unthinking mass-consumers and their rebellion against this leads to very frugal and basic living, poor in money but rich in experiences.

'dino there may be something in what you say about transferance of interests...'

Thank goodness I went to school then, or I would have ended up being a teacher, or even worse, a teacher-trainer!!!

QueenStarlight I agree. We swap skills within my local (and large) HE community. Piano lessons for Spanish tutoring, art classes for woodwork workshops for example.

We also get the same discounts as schools do. In the next 3 months we have a Stansted Airport trip (physics), Duxford Imperial War Museum trip, a working farm trip and a tour and workshop at the Tower of London at heavily discounted prices.