What teachers think of home education

[SauerKraut]

I have noticed from reading through some of the threads on this topic that there are quite a lot of teachers using this site. I was wondering what their views are on home education, in its various forms. I was also wondering what they thought of the article in today's Daily Telegraph on the school- comprising 4 children- in the forest.

I am a secondary sch teacher & we often get previously home schooled pupils who come to use for GCSEs ie from 14yrs. I have taught a few & found that the majority struggle to socialise with others and to work in groups. I imagine it must be such a shock to the system for them.

I'm not sure on this one. I'm a teacher and part of me wants to do it myself, why put DD into a class of 30, when I could give her 1 to 1 teaching myself? However, when I looked into it, I found that a lot of home educating, actually is a lot of home not educating!! There seemed to be quite a few parents (on other sites) where home educating just seemed to be exploring, but did not have any real structure, and I did not get the sense that the children were always getting a well rounded education.

For Primary, I think it may well be a good idea for some, I don't see the socialising as a major issue, as lots of these home school groups seem to do lots of things together regularly and be paired up etc. However, for secondary, I'm not so sure. I'm just not convinced that I really have the depth of knowledge to really teach and make another subject come alive... I'd be convinced I'd make one of those faux pas that people do in other subjects - things for me as an RE teacher, like saying Hindus are polytheistic, or Buddhists believe in God that make me cringe when non specialists say it. If, as a secondary school teacher I feel that I'm not qualified enough to take on the whole of the secondary school curriculum and teach it adequately, I'd hate to have to do it with no formal training at all!!!

Depends on the teacher - in about 25% of home educating families one of the parents is a teacher.

Despite your experience chocolateshoes, the research shows that the vast majority of home educated children have no difficulties reintergrating into school.

As with all children and education set ups, it depends on the child and the education set up!

I think that parents who HE have to put a lot of effort into bothe the education side and the socialising side of things. Many do this very well indeed.

At secondary I think that parents would struggle to cover all subjects well, and would probably need tutors in some areas. They may also limiting the child to a degree regarding taking formal GCSEs if they need to rely on evening classes.....for exaple in out area it would be impossible to take any science other than Biology.

I have grave reservations when parent HE to avoid certain subjects, like RE. I have taught children who were withdrawn because the parents did not want them to learn about any religion other than Christianity, for example. In that case I think the child was going to miss out on a lot.

I'm a primary teacher, and i love school.

I would previously have been suspicious of home educators...

however

over the past 2 years i have come into contact with a few different families who home educate. their reasons for doing so are different. One of the families in my church home educate and use a lot of christian material i.e. they are studying the human body under the theme 'I am fearfully and wonderfully made' (a verse in the bible). I am hugely impressed by what they do and the children are sociable, happy, polite etc. It has really opened my eyes...

hmmm, isn't going to help their understanding of Biology much re evolution [says the secondary science teacher )

I agree that parents are generally not able to teach at secondary level without formal training unless extremely motivated and academically-minded- but would you agree with what appears to be a current theme and practice in home-educating families- that parent and child can learn together, even at secondary level, and that as long as a love of learning has been instilled in the child, he/she could even be able to go it alone?

And in fact it is possible for a parent to facilitate learning without actually teaching?

Yes, but as the saying goes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing! I think sometimes it does work, but I have seen all sorts of threads on here, where non specialist teachers have taught things wrong, or parents have told their kids wrong info too. If every subject is not your subject, then there is a danger that you can teach wrong information... and well, what is the point of that!?!

I'm just reminded of a previous Trainee RE teacher I mentored who tried to tell all my students that Christians believe in reincarnation! This is an obvious example, but somethings it is easy to make wrong assumptions!

Isn't teaching facilitating learning? Seems like a bit of a tautology to me. I don't think that young children can do completely self directed learning, and would worry that their education would be very unbalanced without any direction, if that's what you mean. For example ds would have avoided writing completely for maths/science last year if left to his own devices, whilst dd would like to do creative play all the time...

Yes, but my point is, is that in perusing the right material along with your child, or in researching together, or in simply being available to help check results of research, surely this wouldn't be so likely to happen? Whereas if the parent sets him/herself up as a teacher-type, and so the fount of all knowledge, it is bound to happen...

Teaching can be facilitating learning but can also be the dictation of knowledge to be absorbed- which is not always learning

I think people generally misunderstand the whole concept of home education and think that the parents are taking on the role of the school teacher. SauerKraut is correct - the parent is a facilitator, and the parent and child learn together at first, with the child progressing to independent study at the appropriate age for them.

And I agree that young children can't often do self-directed learning, but I meant more secondary school age kids.

Although I have watched a young child direct its own learning when the right materials- or should I say good materials- and examples were made available

Okay, this is a bad example, as it is from a recent 'A' level class, but it illustrates my point exactly. Recently students were studying Kantian ethics and were looking at applying the theory into practise. Kant believes that you should never 'treat a man as a means to an end' so then students had to think about different scenarios and work out what they think Kant would say should be done in each situation. When they discussed Capital punishment, all students were adament that Kant would oppose Capital punishment on grounds that it is treating a man as a means to an ends. It is a perfectly logical position to adopt. Yet, actually Kant thought it is man's duty to execute murderers and the ilk... something that appears totally illogical to his overall thinking, but if you read his texts more thoroughly (undergraduate level type texts) then you would understand why. I can think of lots more examples like these when you would logically think that something should be the case, but in actual fact it is not.

Obviously, this only tends to happen at the higher levels of Education, which is why I am more cautious about Home edding older students than younger ones. It doesn't matter whether you facilitate or teach, all that means is that you tell them wrong info, or you guide them into thinking the wrong info - at the end of the day, they have still got the worng info!

OK. But my point was that when you facilitate, you don't actually tell them anything - you give them the means to find it out, or you find it out together, and up to a certain level that pitfall would thus be avoided. Although I do agree that by the time one gets to the kind of level you are describing a specialist would probably be required.

SK, while facilitation of learning is central to modern teaching therory, Vygotski and the ZPD and Brunner et al, there are times when you require a deeper understanding of the topic than the student so that you can facilitate the learning.

I teach secondary science and I would confidently say that the child I worl with learn best when I teace my main science...biology, since it is in that area that I have the greatest depth of understanding. Because I know the subject I can confidently predict the areas that they will find difficult. I also understand the areas of misconceptions that exsist within a subject (see the work of Rosalind Driver for these, a facinating study of cross cultural beliefs of science). If people home educate they may well share the misconceptions.....for example, that heavier objects fall faster than light ones, or that plants get their food from the ground. It is only by fully understanding the topic myself that I can 'unpick' a child's mistaken beliefs.

And while you can give a child the means to find you, when they get stuck, hit a difficult concept find the maths difficult or whatever, then exposition and explanation have their place. None of us is capable to totaly 're-inventing the wheel'. Whist generation a motivated learner is the key to education, teaching can, if done well me motivational in its own right. HE may sometimes deny this excitement to a child.

Message withdrawn

Bloss, as a science teacher (a second cousin to Maths, as it were ) I couldn't teach maths at GCSE to even the most committed self learner.

And even doing practicals cannot help children nderstand complex concpts withough guidance. I have lost count of the number of times children have plotted cooling curves as a straight line. That is what they expect, that is what the 'find' It is a complex old buisness!

And as for teaching imaginary numbers.....shudder

Do you believe, though, that a subject such as maths should necessarily be pursued beyond basic levels by children who show no aptitude for the subject and find it very difficult to gain any understanding of it? I think schools take it too much for granted that some subjects are more valuable or necessary than others, while for a lot of people it is precisely those subjects given lesser importance which are most interesting and useful later on. Home education can go a long way towards redressing the balance as far as this is concerned, without necessarily affecting future prospects, as many universities now interview home educated children.

Message withdrawn

Bloss - sorry to hijack- but do you enjoy being a maths teacher? I'm thinking of retraining in teaching and am currently looking at either primary teaching or secondary maths. Any thoughts?

Thank you, Bloss. A tantalising glimpse of the world of mathematics for one such as I, who suffered from lack of aptitude coupled with uninspiring teaching during my school days of yore! You are right- and I think, upon reflection, that this could be one of the pitfalls of home education- especially the child-led kind- that perhaps it is too easy to abandon subjects which are disliked, instead of instilling the discipline necessary to ensure a well- developed mind.