AIBU to ask Wtf Is 'Child Led'?

[JustDanceAddict]

Seeing this a lot lately - what does it actually entail.
If my DCs didn't want to get up for school cos they're tired, is it child-led to keep them off school?
Mine know unless they are illthey are going in, as I have to go to work when tired, etc.

I will listen to my kids' reasons to do x,y or z but if I don't agree they will not be doing it.

I have let DD (15) off a couple of optional things and have regretted it as in the end it wasn't right in the circumstances that she didn't attend.

Surely it's all about compromise, but some things: school, family events, etc. are non-negotiable (barring mental health issues around school before I get flamed).

That really isn't the case. I know a few Steiner/Waldorf educators (school and home ed.) and I find that quite offensive. What are you basing that on, exactly?

The very well known views of the founder and the principles of the entire basis of the schooling, probably. The inherently racist and really rather offensive principles, not to mention the quackery and claptrap.

They all seemed to do relatively well with French, the royals, but very little else, on the whole anyway. Yes, it would have been via governesses and tutors. I confess I looked it up after musing. David Starkey is quite severe about her education (I'm not interested in current royals, would add, just from the education perspective).

Current Steiner/Waldorf teaching is not like that in the slightest.

The very well known views of the founder

He was born in the 1800s. The views of society as a whole have changed considerably since then. Steiner education has evolved much in the last 100 years, obviously.

Quackery and claptrap? If you know anything about modern day Steiner ed, and I strongly suspect you don't, then you'll have to be more precise as to what you mean.

I've never understood why people with no or few relevant qualifications think they are the best people to teach their own children, personally.

Your ignorance has been worse than the 'schooler' comment. Posting snappy soundbites without fact or knowledge to support them. That is just plain rude.

What are you basing that on, exactly?

Steiner's writings, teaching etc. Have a read of that article I linked to. It's well researched and thoroughly referenced.

were t they also supplying Dachau with equipment as well? Steiner Waldorf schools are based on a philosophy that is at best potty and at worst deeply racist.

And ironically, the way the 'encourage creativity' is in a very defined and restrictive way. It's honestly not all cute hippy organic stuff. It's quite awful and it should be banned.

There are still plenty of the guiding principles that have not changed. And don't forget that one of the guiding principles of Steiner education was to deliberately hide many of the spiritual aspects from parents while purposefully indoctrinating children with them.

Your ignorance has been worse than the 'schooler' comment. Posting snappy soundbites without fact or knowledge to support them. That is just plain rude

It's called an opinion, same as everyone elses post. And there is plenty of fact and knowledge behind my opinions, that is how I form them. Try it!

And ironically, the way the 'encourage creativity' is in a very defined and restrictive way. It's honestly not all cute hippy organic stuff. It's quite awful and it should be banned.

I think you need to read up on current Steiner methods and teaching. Steiner schools are very inclusive, as they ought to be. What you're saying simply isn't true. 'Quite awful' and other very vague and emotive comments show that you know little about the subject.

Toosexyforyahshirt -

There are still plenty of the guiding principles that have not changed.
Which are those, then? Have you just looked it up? They were inherently racist according to you mere moments ago.

It's called an opinion, same as everyone elses post. And there is plenty of fact and knowledge behind my opinions, that is how I form them. Try it!
I'm afraid to tell you there isn', toosexyforyourshirt. Your previous posts are quite lacking in subject knowledge, and very shaky on Steiner indeed. Soundbites and anecdote is not fact and knowledge.

Since you have no clue at all as to how much I know about absolutely anything, could you please sod off pretending you do? Thanks very much.
Steiner devotees do tend to be very defensive, but you don't have to be offensive as well. The facts are out there for all to see, it isn't news to anyone.

www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/11/what-every-parent-should-know-about-steiner-waldorf-schools.html

I certainly do know much about Waldorf education. As an ex secondary teacher I'm very interested in educational philosophies. I'm obviously a 'devotee' to them all now
You haven't been able to offer up anything but snappy anecdotes and emotive empty statements. I know you know nothing about the subject as you haven't been able to mention the usual/main objection.

And I refuse to read a notorious anti Steiner, nonsense webpage. This is in place of you own knowledge I suppose, google searching for links. Goodness. You obviously know as little about those people as you do about modern day Steiner education.

How very rude, windy. One can be glad you are no longer a teacher.

Everyone knows about Steiner schools don't they? It's in the mainstream papers:
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/steiner-schools-have-some-questionable-lessons-for-todays-children-a7402911.html

Reading this thread has given me a headache! Whilst I acknowledge that some people parent poorly and need help, why does there have to be such a debate at the other end of the scale? Or in the middle?
Why does everything have to have a label these days and why is there so much judgement?
I keep my child safe but let him explore. I impose boundaries that keep him healthy. We talk, play, discuss, debate. We argue.
I cope with the 'I don't even like you' moments and realise they are a consequence of him growing into his own person. Tears turn into giggles. Giggles turn into tears. Bedtime is a battle. Teeth brushing also. Over excitement needs to be calmed down.
I am preparing my child for adult life in the best way I can do it. I make mistakes. I sometimes don't do it perfectly because I am tired/don't have time. But even those moments are a lesson learned for my son. He's learning how to deal with other people's emotions and feelings.

Life as a grown up is complicated. It's our job to get them to cope with that bit by bit!

good grief, 'schoolers' isn't label or official term for anything or anyone. It was indeed shorthand for 'people who send their children to school' as used in that one post written hurriedly before leaving.

On average parents who send their children to school are negative towards HE, though not as negative on average as teachers (well those that haven't given up teaching to HE anyway - and there are quite a lot of those around for some reason).

I would be the first to admit I can't teach a class of 30 kids with varying abilities anywhere near as well as a qualified teacher. But I am very confident that I can teach my one child better than a qualified teacher could teach her as one of 30.

I mean MY (not assumed to be everyone's!) ranked order would look like:

Teacher 1:1
Parent 1:1
Teacher 1:30
Parent 1:30

And I can't afford Teacher 1:1......

It truly is amazing how little time we have put into her learning to read for example, in comparison to her cousin who is the same age. This is simply by dint of not bothering to teach her until she wanted to learn it. We started about 2 and a half years later and caught up in 6 months.

On average parents who send their children to school are negative towards HE, though not as negative on average as teachers

Can you please tell us the studies you are getting these averages from? Or are you just talking about your own biased and extremely limited experiences?

And I refuse to read a notorious anti Steiner, nonsense webpage. This is in place of you own knowledge I suppose, google searching for links. Goodness.

It's quackwatch. You know, the evidence based, meticulously researched folks? That debunk all sorts of stuff? Written by highly educated scientists using a variety of peer reviewed and verified sources?

It's not like getting medical advice from mercola ffs, read through the primary links from that article (which I picked as a nice summary.) You can read David colquhoun's opinions on it as well. He's hardly a dim bulb now is he?

I could also mention the uk Steiner school a friend sent her kid to and subsequently pulled them out of due to the frankly scandalous things she uncovered when her kid was there, but as it's still subject to legal I shan't ;)

The terms modern and Steiner shouldn't really be in the same sentence. There's no use arguing that he was a product of his time, that you only do the sensible bits, because really there aren't any sensible bits. The entire thing is mystical bampottery.

Eurythmy- bampottery.
Homeopathy
Ethereal and astral body manifestation
Biodynamics
Wet on wet artwork nonsense
Antipathy towards modern medicine
Tightly controlled 'creativity' in line with what he thought children should do at various ages (based on his own slow development.)
Control of the home environment.

It's all utterly crackers. All of it. At best it's fruitloopery, which frankly the poor kids don't swerve and t worst it's a nasty little semi-cult, which fails children completely. It doesn't help them be creative, or think critically.

Home education can be beneficial (I know a couple of families in very very rural areas who do it with satellite links and their kids are really well educated, curious, creative and rational.) but it's not for everyone.
And schools aren't perfect - teachers are stretched, class sizes are often too big, there's a massive amount of paperwork and red tape.

How best we educate the majority of kids so that they all have equality of opportunity Is the question,

For me its more like

Teacher 1:1
Teacher 1:30 (though we don't have class sizes that big over here - think DD's class size is about 15 - will know for sure when she starts next month)
Just about anyone else:1
Me 1:1
Me 1:30 - but that'd be a disaster!

I'm trying to teach DD to read in English at the moment (as she might not be learning that in school until 3rd grade depending on whether she gets mother tongue classes or not) so I know how terrible I am at teaching (whereas Teach Your Monster To Read is doing a much better job)

Most teachers I know seem to have similar views to me on home education which is:

• not all HE give the same opportunities
• home education is a valid route when ran well and with a clear understanding of what a child needs in order to take steps later in life
• some people who home educate are hindering their children's options (e.g. one example from years back was a family who HE and their handwriting was copying bible texts, their study programs were varieties of American Evangelical propaganda material)

I'm sure the standard of HE varies at least as widely as the standard of schools!

natsku If you recognise in yourself that you wouldn't be able to teach your child effectively then obviously school is a great choice for you. We, and more importantly, our children are all different.

anatidae I don't a damn thing about steiner but if its peddling fiction as fact then I wouldn't be interested at all.

A minor issue for us is the teaching of christianity as fact when we find it to be fiction in our local schools.

You wouldn't think it was all that heavily emphasised in standard state schools but my DD and a friend got chatting and there was such monumental incredulity when the friend discovered DD 'doesn't even know who Jesus is!'

Morphene
I agree. I was just saying that most teachers aren't this anti home education blob. Most of us think it can work really well, but others varieties of it are poor. The difference to me is that when a school is struggling support gets put in and the school is tracked whereas someone HE (like the family who are using what I see as Evangelical propaganda that teaches 6 day creationism as scienve) can never get asked to demonstrate the education they are offering.
I'd consider it myself through the primary years. I'm a bit more wary of it into secondary unless it's supported with tutors because I'd know myself that even as a qualified teacher, my gcse science is old and I'd not be able to teach the more challenging stuff now required.

Yeah I know my failings well Morphene I have no doubt there are parents out there that can do an excellent job of teaching their children but I'm not one of them. Plus I wouldn't want DD to miss out on the extra help that's available in schools e.g. special ed (its available to every child over here and most get it in some form or other at some point - DD has already been put down for speech therapy when she starts next month).
I don't like the way religion is taught as fact either but I opted DD out of religious classes in nursery and I'll be opting her out in school too (she'll do an ethics class instead)

I actually think HE might be easier at a secondary level than primary level because surely by that point its more about facilitating them doing their own research and learning rather than 'teaching' them? Though of course there's problems when it comes to practical lessons in things like science.

natsku
I'd have said the opposite. Home Ed in primary is giving general foundations (but I accept I that primary staff know a lot about teaching decoding etc thay I dont).

Secondary requires a reasonable amount of specialist subject knowledge.
I wouldn't just give a class of 14 year olds Shakespeare and then expect them to discover everything. That approach basically suggests that now we have Google there's no reason to have subject specialist teachers any more.
I'm a qualified secondary teacher. I couldn't teach gcse physics or geography as well as my own because teaching is more than 'Here's a topic go find out stuff'.

Yes, I've heard that Finland's education system after age 7 is mostly on the traditional side, other than some of the recent experimental stuff. I think Lucy Crehan even called Finland "the Japan of the north," if I remember rightly (desks in rows, a textbook for every subject etc.).

They do seem to do a lot fewer hours of schooling than many countries--because they start formal school later, have shorter days and don't start to do homework till around secondary. On the other hand, the Finnish writing system can be mastered in an incredibly short space of time, and I am pretty sure that that has something to do with it. Imagine how much British schooling time and homework could be reduced if we had a kompliitlii fonetik raiting sistem laik this and the kids could master reading/writing completely in about six weeks and NO spellings to memorize...

The writing system does make things soo much easier. The children learn to read and write really quickly starting first with the words separated into syllables and soon enough they can read literally anything whereas teaching to read and write in English seems incredibly difficult to me - so many different rules to teach and then all the sight words they have to memorise. There is a nationwide move away from the completely traditional schooling in that there has to be some cross-disciplinary 'project teaching' every year but otherwise its still timetabled lessons and textbooks.

I'd say the general foundations are the hard bit Maisy as if you get them wrong then their learning is at a disadvantage afterwards. I reckon primary teachers have a really difficult job, teaching them how to learn.