A wave of illiterate “home schooled” children

[RedSkyatNight25]

Prepared to get torn apart, and I know many homeschool because the school environment isn’t right for their children (SEN, sensory issues - whatever else) and their needs aren’t met by school with a chronic lack of SEN placements and too much demand etc. I’m not naive to that. I also know some parents with adequate resource will ensure their children have a rounded education whilst being homeschooled.

But there seems to be a movement to homeschooling by people who are simply anti establishment with a point to prove. Their grammar and communication on social media tells me they’re not equipped to homeschool a child. Not least I think the socialisation and soft skills school provides are hugely important too. I suspect most of these parents either haven’t considered the benefits of school or hugely underestimated it, especially past primary are parents really equipped to teach ALL the subjects with sufficient skill if they lack the knowledge themselves? Are they not underestimating the skills and expertise of qualified teachers?

AIBU to think it’s really concerning? These are the next generation of our workforce and infrastructure. I personally think we are hugely privileged to live in a country with free education - I know it’s not perfect but I’m not convinced homeschooling is better for a vast majority.

As I said, I don't think it's the norm in the UK (reading fir comprehension!). But it does exist, and some parents are using the US 'Christian' curricula.

There is, it's called flexischooling.

There's a difference also between being intelligent and being able to teach. Particularly to teach your own children. I know many people who are very well educated, PhD level and all that, but who can't get information over in a form that anyone else could understand, never mind learn from. So it's not just being educated yourself as a parent, it's being able to get that information over in a form in which your children can understand it (without everyone losing their temper), and your children actually wanting to sit down and listen to you for long enough to take it on board.

I didn't call you prejudiced for insisting that children should go to school.

Home educated children are private candidates , so you would need to find the statistics for private candidates. However, this category also includes adults who are re-sitting exams, or never sat them. The government doesn't keep statistics for Home educated children, but it would be interesting if they did.

I am sure we can all quote examples of homeschooling done badly, but the same applies to in-school education.

Just as most children do OK at school, so most home-schooled children also do OK.

For some chidlren school is torture; just as some poorly homeschooled children miss out.

There are huge flaws in our education system, not least the challenge of crowd control which can hold up the process of true education and be seriously frightening for some children. Some parents choose not to have their children go through this, and it is an entirely reasonable decision - and there is a lot of support available to home educate well.

I do take the point that it needs to be better monitored in order to weed out the minority of children for whom "home education" in practice means no education at all; and to deal with issues of child protection. But it is not right in principle to force every child to go to school just because some parents are abusive and having children in school means that this can be better identified. There have to be some freedoms left to parents.

That's nonsense. We all teach our children from the day they're born.

It's home educated, OP.
I have no problem with being called anti-establishment. The "vast majority" will never be likely to attempt home ed. Plenty of children leave school semi-literate. Plenty of children leave school traumatised by bullying. For sure, home ed is unsuitable for some. So is school.

About half a century ago, kids playing entirely unsupervised (including on building sites, railways, in rivers etc), playing roughly, teasing, fighting or even hurting animals was seen as par for the course.
Was it really a utopia of perfecr behaviour in the good old days? Borstals were pretty full.

Because they don’t want their children socialising with other children outside their church. I doubt they will go to medical school as one of the prerequisites these days is having some work experience in a health setting. If you don’t want your children spending time with non religious people it’s going to be quite hard. They do no extra curricular activities either. Maybe they’ll get good results but won’t have much to add on top.

That's what you said in your second post, not in your first.

One of my daughter’s friends was a school refuser, social anxiety at the time, was bought her own small flat to live in, near her parents, only child and very indulged.

She was then home schooled, but was doing nothing, so the local council arranged for her to attend a local approved school, who picked her up by minibus, and took her to the new school.

On leaving school, her social anxiety disappeared and she ran her own shop.

I suspect the people who take their kids out of school for spurious reasons, risk this, and it would probably be better in the long run for their kids

Wrong, because as I said already, if a child has the best resources available to them - i.e. a school - and doesn't get five passes at GCSE, you know for sure that the problem is not that they were denied a proper education. And the parent who has denied their child an education, and whose child has failed to meet a minimum standard as a result, doesn't have to go to jail. They can pay a fine instead.

Currently there are zero consequences for denying a child an education. (By denying a child an education, I mean either a school career or an effective home education.) Yes, some parents do home ed very well, but what about all those who don't? You can take them out of school because you don't like the lunch menu, you can be unbothered about teaching them to read or making sure they pass any GCSEs, and there are no consequences. HOW is that fair to children? How is that allowed?

Parents who are feckless about education need consequences for it. I don't know why jail time or fines is so controversial. Currently those are the two punishments allowed for parents whose children are enrolled at school but don't make them go.

We had one who removed her child to home school just before Easter one year and insisted on having all the exercise books to take home. Fair enough, except she turned up at the end of the summer term and demanded a written report!

I had a teacher friend who successfully home educated two of her children until they went to grammar school. Her DH was a GP. She could afford not to earn.

Even had I wanted to, or had the skills, I neded an income. Serious question, unless one parent can support the family, how can it be an affordable option?

I would suggest that part of it is learning to get along with people you don't like very much.

I would note that local authorities aren't routinely fined for "denying children an education" even though they do. In a small minority of cases parents are awarded a small amount of compensation, but in most cases, tumbleweed.

So schools can fail 55% of children (75% of disadvantaged children) and you're fine with that?

Doesn't sound like you care about education very much.

Sadly most state schools don't have qualified and experienced teachers in each subject and this the socialisation of many peers includes dealing with very difficult behaviour.

The increase in home education has coincided with huge reduction in school funding and increasing issues in schools.

And those at school who don't get the grades should be compensated by the education authority right?
Lots of children in schools will fail their GCSEs

Unfortunately also learning to accept being bullied by people who don't like you very much.

Indeed - but children do not have good social controls and it is often about bullying and disruptive behaviour, which is a whole different ball game from just "people you don't like very much."

Exactly - some children won't achieve GCSE or equivalent level regardless of home educated or at school but you only want to punish those who home Ed.

Why ?

I don't really know where to start here, but I think this is possibly the most naive comment on the thread if a child has the best resources available to them - i.e. a school - and doesn't get five passes at GCSE, you know for sure that the problem is not that they were denied a proper education

For quite a lot of children, school really isn't the best educational option.

You are assuming that homeschooled children are being denied a proper education. You are wrong.

Totally achievable through Guiding/Scouting, cadets, sports teams, theatre groups.

There are so many variables here; sometimes it can be a practical solution, but it's something to be approached realistically,
A close friend of mine undertook this as a temporary measure, when a house move from London out to Kent was delayed. Her DS was coming up to Reception age; if they had stayed put, he would have attended the school where she taught before maternity leave, where she was very happy, but they were taking the long-term view of what would happen at KS3.
Rather than doing the whole "settling into school" routine twice, she opted to home school him until the house move finally happened.
There were many pluses; she has a really close bond with him to this day, and having taught his age group, she was happy with his academic progress, and she enjoyed many "educational" excursions with him.
However, as PP's have mentioned, she worried about the limits to his social circle; he played regularly with his younger cousins, but didn't have the regular give and take with his peer group. (I know there are home-schooling groups which meet up, but it's not the same as rubbing along with peers day-today, and the stimulation of shared tasks). She missed having school resources to draw upon, and freely admitted that, as he grew older, she would find it hard to offer all the variety which subject specialists can offer. On her own admission, for example, neither Music nor PE were her strong suits, and he had a flair for both as it turned out!
In the event, he moved happily back into regular school life, but admitted it had not been the soft option.