How about home education?

[Hazzy]

These days, choosing which school to send your child to seems to take up more and more of parents' time, energy and often money. I wonder how many people out there have considered home education - and indeed know that it's perfectly legal; the law merely states that children from 5-16 must receive a 'full-time education' suitable to their age, aptitude and abilities. And you can do that at home.

The Mumsnet page on choosing education simply says: "Give up your career, move into a less expensive area and cancel all social engagements for the next twelve years. Educate your children at home." Although I understand these sentiments, it would be a shame not to explore the option further.

There are something like 150,000 children in England and Wales who are being educated at home. Parents have all sorts of reasons for choosing this way of life: perhaps their children were unhappy or were being bullied at school; maybe a suitable school is too far away; or perhaps the parents just feel that the present system cannot deliver the sort of education that children deserve - where they are not pressured into achieving impersonal goals in a system that seems to care more for league tables, the National Curriculum and group control than it does for the development of a child's love for learning and need for creative play and 'work'.

Of course, home education takes up time - but imagine an end to school runs, and pre- and after-school care! Many 'experts' (but don't let that put you off :-)) reckon that the actual time a child takes to 'learn' to read, write, do arithmetic and so on is remarkably short - what is more important is that a child is doing it at his/her own pace and with support and encouragement. After all, we don't all learn to read at 5 or 6, and do long division at 10 or 11 - if at all!

My partner and I home educate our six-year-old son (and intend to home educate his four-year-old brother) after he spent one frustrating and fruitless year at what is reckoned to be a good school. Perhaps our experience - and those of other home educators we know - would be helpful to anyone considering home education. So please fire away with any questions, objections or concerns you have...

Hang on, before we had schools, we had nothing which even resembled a reasonable level of literacy throughout society.

Accept your point Gracie but that doesn't mean that life was not meaningful or without culture. However, I am not for one moment suggesting that we return to no form of education at all. What I am trying to do is think outside the context of our history. We think that what we have today is how it should be but I wonder whether that is so. Schools developed to make children employable adults. Is that what we are still striving for? Is it succeeding. Most employers take on "first jobbers" knowing that they will have to put in a fair degree of training before the employee is trully ready to do the job in hand and salaries are low accordingly. Do we need to go to university to be lawyers, accountants, engineers etc?
I have lots of questions but not really any answers!

I actually agree with you Bugsy. I think that academic qualifications and success are virtually meaningless as far as employability are concerned. Time and time again, I see "brilliant" Oxbridge graduates joining our firm who fail dismally because they often lack a sense of humour, common sense, savvy and above all the ability to think laterally and get along with people. I would like to see a study on the subsequent career success of students who were awarded firsts for example.

Having said that, I loved school and without doubt, my firmest friends are those I made there. I went to an all girls boarding school and unlike Lil, I found it tremendous. We were all completely lacking in vanity and not remotely interested in boys. We were very keen on having adventures and fun and as a result, spent our teenage years being utterly un-self conscious. Having said that, this was in rural Australia - not sure it was ever like that in the UK.

I'm really intersted in home educating. My chid is way off school age yet (1! - though I'm told I've missed all sorts of school lists I should have put her on by now - what a horrendous thought! ... in truth though I know very little about the curent system and all its complexity). Home educating was mentioned to me a while ago and I thought how wonderful - for about five minutes. Then I thought I couldn't possibly do it. I don't have the knowledge myself .. and the patience, dedication, commitment, time - well I'd love to, but I'm not sure I could. Do you work it all our yourself - what you're going to teach, etc. And will you later teach to exam level or do you think you will feel it necessary to introduce the structure of school learning then? "They may fuck you up your mum and dad" - but I have no doubt that what happens at school is as big an influence on one's life. Perhaps schools are more open and atuned to encourage natural curisoity, the desire to think, and any learning that comes by way of that - but I fear competitive and goal orientated education is the way of things, and it seems to me it will be very difficult to tell from the outside. Am I right?

Bells has hit the nail on the head, I have seen a lot of people I went to school with, be so bloody serious, lime shoved up there arse, can't take a joke or tell one, because they are so wrapped up in themselves and striving to be "excellent". I got 'O' Grades, didn't go to uni, worked in an office for 2 years on the dreaded YTS, left there worked on the farm with my dad, did various other things that were in Office Admin and then nannied for a while before I got married. We now have a good business, but what did folk say "you'll never get anywhere, because you haven't furthered your education". Some people do go onto uni etc and are happy with that, as Lil is one of the most upfront and open people i think I have ever met, well almost met!.

I believe in socialisation at all levels of growing up, even from tiny babies, for one thing it helps us all realise what is outside the home and what is acceptable behaviour outside it as well, that is an education in itself, life is an education as well. I do think that personality has something to do with it as well, I am very outgoing whereas my husband is quite stay at home, he was quite hemmed in at home because his mother thought that if he went anywhere to play without her, then someone would steal him!, I mean she lived on cloud cuckoo land this was in the early 70's when he was only at primary school, I must say that he is definitely not as sociable as me, my family did a lot of socialising as a large group with other families as well, some met through school others not. As a family now we have a very varied mixture of friends, all completely potty like myself, poor souls!

Bells, must say in defence of Oxbridge graduates that I know plenty who show all the brilliance, initiative and lateral thinking skills needed to succeed at work - yes, even some with Firsts (I am not being sarcastic there!). But in my experience, they weren't the ones who got the top jobs in the City! The main qualification for that appeared to be the right accent and family connections....so maybe it's the recruitment process in the company that should be looked at again?

Sml, the City has moved a long way from that!. It is now only one or two very tiny British partnerships that care a jot about accent and connections. It is now very much a meritocracy and entrance requirements are heavily focused on academic achievement.

I have nothing against Oxbridge - my husband went to Oxford and as it happens, I have a first (albeit from an Aussie University). Just that these days, most large firms seem to focus on academic qualifications at the expense of personality and aptitude. I would just prefer to see a more balanced approach.

I second the concerns about over emphasis on academic qualifications. Obviously Bells wasn't suggesting that no Oxbridge graduate can have a range of admirable qualities rather that by focusing exclusively on academic results, instutions are not focusing sufficiently on hiring well rounded people.

The city employs 300,000 people and is by far and away the UK's most successful industry.... Family connections play no more of a role here than in any other major industry i.e. it does happen, but very rarely. Actually, if you look at the women who are at the top of the tree in the City (Carrol Galley, Marjorie Scardino, Clara Furse etc), they have succeeded through sheer hard work and talent.

Bells, your school sounds like it was a great experience. Did you enjoy learning too? Were your teachers inspiring?
My own experience was so intellectually crushing that I'm keen to find out if school can ever be interesting and exciting.
As an adult I read books like I drink tea and I'm always interested in finding out new things and in learning more about subjects. However, even at university I found almost everything I was taught so dull. I only ever applied myself to anything to pass exams.
Hazzy, how are you going to tackle subjects that you may not be particularly good at yourself?

Hello Lil,

I think you underestimate how much home-educated children can and do interact with others - after all, there's no reason why they should be locked up in the house all day. I doubt very much whether your experience of university was at all unusual - others' confidence is so often bravado which masks a lot of insecurities. And I'm not sure 'interacting' with boys for eight hours a day at school necessarily overcomes awkwardness or insecurities. One of the problems of being a teenager is the pressure not to admit to one's problems, worries, doubts and bewilderments - and a cocooned or ignored teenager will have rocky times whether or not they're school- or home-educated.

I have no intention of 'indoctrinating' my children. Of course, they will pick up some ideas and outlooks from their parents - like all children - but if they grow up in a supportive, questioning and exploring family, there is no reason why they can't develop the confidence to ask awkward questions and to believe differently from their parents. Is every parent of schoolchildren happy that their children aren't being 'indoctrinated' in any way - by their own parents, by teachers or whoever? I can't see the relevance of home education to indoctrination.

You wrote, "When you think of all the varied adults who taught you at school, you picked up lots of different views on the world." Well, I had a pretty good set of teachers at school, but I think there's more to the adult world than parents and teachers if one wants to pick up a lot of varied views. For instance, how many teachers can openly discuss matters to do with religion, sexuality or politics? Their job means that they would be stepping into a minefield. Some teachers might be outspoken, but who knows what many of them really think about the world?

You ask, "When do you propose to send your children to school? I mean you can't teach the GCSE curriculum for example." At the moment (though that can change), we don't intend to send them to school - believe it or not, you can teach the GCSE curriculum to your children. Or rather, you can provide them with the support, encouragement and resources to explore these subjects for themselves, discuss any problems they have and co-operate to find out what the 'answer' is. After all, teenage children are already well aware of the fact that their parents don't know everything :-) Libraries, galleries, museums and the internet, used wisely, will give you more than enough resources to sail through GCSEs, without necessarily having to fork out lots of money for textbooks, workbooks and so on.

I'll get round to reading today's postings a.s.a.p. :-)

Best wishes

It was indeed a great experience Bugsy. Our school was located on a 60 acre farm and looking after the animals was a key part of our education (everything from grisly bits like castration and gutting chickens to milking). It was rather old fashioned with compulsory home economics (which I loved) and sewing but also a strong academic focus in later years. There were a number of teachers who were truly inspirational. What was great about it though was the camaraderie of the girls. I can't quite believe how lacking in spite and vanity we were. I think it somehow reflects having a fantastic physical location and loads of space. The responsibility of the animals and the drive for us to do well in the annual agricultural show really bound us together in a common cause. Also, academically, it was never a highly competitive environment.

I have looked at a few schools here for our son and have frankly been horrified at the poor facilities on offer. My idea of a school doesn't exactly tally with what's on offer in Central London!.

Must say that I am surprised to hear that the City is such a meritocracy - has this happened in the last 10 years or so? Can you really say that graduates who come from state schools find it as easy to get jobs in merchant banks as people from more privileged backgrounds? And is the diversity of backgrounds there really a true reflection of the national average? Apologies for sounding sceptical, I am just surprised if this is the case; after all it's not only the people I knew at university who went into merchant banking, but also the people I worked with whilst temping in various City institutions and banks after I graduated, plus other acquaintances. The least posh merchant banker I have ever met came from a public school background, but a normal middle class family.
It doesn't surprise me in the least to hear that the women had to rise through their talents and hard work alone though.

Bells, your school sounds great, a bit like where my mother went in the UK, but they had been evacuated to the country during the second world war! My school was all girls too, the lack of vanity and boy hassle was a noticeable feature. Can't help with suggestions for boys schools though, my brother went to one in Oxford, it was rubbish in those days though may be better now.

Ever since Big Bang in 1987 the City has undergone an incredible transformation. Obviously now, it is completely and utterly dominated by American firms who to put it bluntly, don't give a toss where you went to school. There are now only 2-3 of those "merchant banks" left. Sure, there are still a large number of ex-public school students around but I wouldn't have thought any more so than in law firms or accounting firms and so on. Rememeber that dealing floors are actually dominated by Lil's mates (that's Essex barrow boys (joke Lil!)) who can barely speak. This is where the bulk of the jobs are although these positions aren't generally filled with graduate trainees. There is still a healthy market for posh mergers and acquisition types and I may be wrong, but I think the city remains the largest single employer of Oxbridge graduates. Like any highly competitive, globalised industry though, it is basically a meritocracy. We wouldn't be up there with New York and Tokyo otherwise.

Bells, re schools in London - you and me both. Part of the reason I am retraining as a Montessori teacher is because I think that education should be a fantastic experience. We are all born with this incredible desire/instinct to learn and for lots of us that desire ends up completely extinguished by the time we are about nine - if not earlier.
Our definition of a good school in the UK is one that gets children to pass exams successfully. That does not necessarily mean the child reaches their full potential or discovers what really makes them tick, it just means they get a set of qualifications. I think that in the 21st century we could be doing better than that. If it is possible in rural Australia, then it could be here too.

Interesting discussion here about academic qualifications - I tend to agree that far too much emphasis is placed on them these days. In a way, I think this is a hangover from a time when the 'bright' kids (nearly all middle class) went to grammar schools and on to become lawyers, doctors, accountants and so on, while the 'thick' kids (ie working class) went to kick their heels for a few years until they were pushed into the local factory.

Of course the world has moved on since then, but it worries me that many parents, who themselves possibly had dull or horrible schooldays, reckon that qualifications = 'good' job = success in life. Personally, I don't think any parts of that equation are necessarily true :-)

In recent years, there's been much hand-wringing about under-achieving boys. But what are these boys being told? Knuckle down, get lots of exams and get a good job. No-one ever asks why. Without wishing to deny opportunities to anyone, it needs to be said that we can't all be high-achieving high earners. Perhaps 'problem' boys might find that their interests and skills were respected and valued if they were outside the school environment.

Let's say a boy wants to become (or wants to find out more about becoming) a joiner, a DJ or a mechanic. I'd suggest he go out, find some joiners, DJs or mechanics, ask them about what they do, see them in action, practise whatever skills he sees as necessary and so on. The school, however, is much more likely to push him through a bunch of 'irrelevant' GCSEs and push him into a vocational course at a local college. Why? And isn't the home-educated child far more likely to explore the first route than be tempted by the second route?

Best wishes

Croppy, I am very happy to hear that - the words "mergers and aquisitions" do sound familiar especially with regard to the most useless twit I am thinking of - better not say any more! Actually there were two refuges for the well connected from my year at uni: banking and management consultancy.

Hazzy

I'll make no apologies for a serious rant coming here, I mean its one thing teaching tiny tots but up until they're adults!!!Talk about anti-establishment and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I do think you have forgotten how hard GCSEs and A-levels were when we were taking them . How do you propose to teach Physics, chemistry or biology without laboratory equipment. Do you really think Virtual experiments will replace the fun of exploding test-tubes! and how good is your french, spanish, italian etc how do you propose your child learns to speak these languages on their own? Are they going to do drama on their own? And although I certainly have sympathies with your problems with your childs last school, to decide that you can do EVERYTHING better than trained professionals is not fair on your child. what if they want the challenge of being a doctor, lawyer or professional and also earn decent money. They will not have the qualifications and won't be able to do it. You have closed off a lot of options for your children - I hope they will forgive you, if they find themselves stuck in a limited choice of profession. Its their whole life you are determining.

I really think its up to us parents to leave all options open and if you can afford not to work then maybe you could get a job and spend the money on sending your children to a good school that fufills all your criteria. I'm sure that would be more healthy for all of you!

Hello Lil,

I think I'll try and answer you point by point...

Being anti-establishment isn't necessarily a bad thing - humans have often made the world a better place by being anti-establishment (votes for men, votes for women, civil rights and so on). Maybe each case should be judged on its merits rather than opposed because it upsets the establishment.

"I do think you have forgotten how hard GCSEs and A-levels were when we were taking them." I never said they weren't hard, but I did suggest that if you take a good look at what's required, then you might be surprised. Just how many real hours of learning does it take a child to pass a GCSE? Knowledge is not some sort of mystical thing which only the "trained professionals" can reveal to the uninitiated. It is all around us - there to be explored, questioned and added to by people with the enthusiasm and opportunity to do so.

Why not have fun with test-tubes at home? It's not very expensive - and there are splendid things you can do with a plastic lemonade bottle and the contents of a kitchen cupboard :-) None of my school science was really about experimenting - it was about reproducing an 'experiment' that had been done a million times before and hoping that you'd got it right. I don't think science really makes discoveries that way.

My French was pretty poor, but improved immensely when I went to work in Luxembourg in my year off after school. I had no choice but to speak it, which was quite daunting but good fun. Before that, I'd been taught in a very dull way by a non-fluent teacher and managed to get an A at O-level - because the vast majority of it was written work. If your child really wants to learn a language, then s/he can - you can pick up French language radio (just along from Radio 4), read French magazines and newspapers, borrow some tapes from the library, go to France and have a chat with the people you meet and so on.

On the question of drama, how many people don't have local drama clubs and societies? Or a local theatre that runs drama workshops, talks and so on?

Nowhere have I said that I've decided that I "can do EVERYTHING better than trained professionals" - because we're not trying to do the same thing. I'm not criticising teachers in this respect, but I'm not trying to stand up in front of thirty children for forty minutes (or whenever the bell goes) to deliver a curriculum to them so that they can pass exams. That would certainly take "trained professionals" to do, but I profoundly disagree that it is the one true way that children can receive an education.

If my child wants to become "a doctor, lawyer or professional and also earn decent money", then I'm not standing in his way. If it means taking exams in order to do that, then we'll see what it takes to pass those exams. Whoever said that "they will not have the qualifications and won't be able to do it"? Plenty of home-educated people have all sorts of qualifications.

I haven't "closed off a lot of options" for my children in the slightest. I would hope that they will be perfectly capable of finding and pursuing their own goals in life, with the full support and encouragement of their parents. It's not "their whole life" I am determining - it's their opportunity not to go to school, so that they can explore and learn about the world and hopefully see learning as a genuine lifelong activity and one that they couldn't consider doing without. What they decide to do with their lives will have come from their own freedom to enrich themselves.

No, I can't afford not to work, but I work freelance at home (as does my partner). This is not going to suit everyone, but is increasingly common these days. Unfortunately, it's also common to see harassed double-income families who scrimp and save to move into a 'nice' school catchment area (whatever happened to 'socialising with all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds'?) or provide private education for children who simply haven't been asked what they want.

Would you want to have parents who'd spent every spare penny on your education? Far from being "more healthy" for all of us, I would suspect that it would be a surefire recipe for an unhappy, guilt-ridden family.

Best wishes

message withdrawn

I have to say Lil, I agree with a lot of what you say. Separately, my parents spent every spare penny they had on their four children's education. They wouldn't have had it any other way. We understood and appreciated their sacrifice and repaid them by doing well at school, attending University and all getting the jobs we wanted. There was never any pressure on us because of the sacrifice though. It was just that that was their priority.

Hazzy, if you and your partner both work freelance from home, will it be difficult to ensure that you always have the time available to meet your children's educational requirements?. What happens if an increase in your workload coincides with a testing time for them?.

Also, what about team sports? This was a vital part of my schooling and for obvious reasons, it was important to be involved in such sports with a large number of children of your own age of hugely varying abilities.

Most people I know in the UK look back positively on their school days. Of course it is the friendship and camaraderie that meant more to them than the actual education. As Lil said in an earlier posting, few people remember the actual content of their lessons but most got enough qualifications to do what they wanted to do.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced in terms of making use of your local drama society for drama. Won't this by definition attract people who are passionate about drama, probably have a degree of talent and who will generally be adults?. I thoroughly enjoyed Drama at school for the sheer fun of it - we were all absolutely dreadful but it was all a great laugh. I imagine local societies take it a lot more seriously than a random group of 13 year olds. As far as labs are concerned, I personally would have loathed to have found myself at an adult education centre. Again it was the fun of experiments which appealed to me, not the actual boring old Chemistry. Oh and of course, the communal leering at the Science master...

Hazzy, you obviously believe you have the ability to teach your children through to A level, by various unorthodox methods. To be honest your ideas that got me fired up were the fact that you call qualifications..a bunch of 'irrelevant' GCSEs and that...we care too much about fitting in./ Its understandable as an adult to look back and wonder at our insecurities as children, but I think its a dangerous experiment on your children to ignore these facts of life. I understand you want to give your kids a more holistic outlook, which is great, of course. But so do many of us on this site, but we believe it's done as part of parenting alongside mainstream life.

Have you ever spoken to home-educated children? were they happy in their isolation from mainstream? The only 2 people I can think of that were educated at home are Ruth Lawrence (remember her?) and the queen!! Not the most sociable people ever. So please tell me you have spoken to happy and fufilled adults who were educated away from their peers until they were 18!!

Hello Lil,

Your wrote: "Hazzy, you obviously believe you have the ability to teach your children through to A level, by various unorthodox methods." Well, it's not obvious, because I've never said that - I wrote, "If it means taking exams in order to do that, then we'll see what it takes to pass those exams." That might mean using home-based resources, going to a sixth-form college (which is, after all, voluntary), evening classes, adult education centres - or even a school that allows 'flexi-learning' by not insisting on full-time attendance. All of these are options, so where's the problem? And if 'unorthodox' methods work, so what?

You wrote: "To be honest your ideas that got me fired up were the fact that you call qualifications..a bunch of 'irrelevant' GCSEs and that...we care too much about fitting in." I called GCSEs 'irrelevant' in the particular circumstance of a boy who wants to become a mechanic, a joiner or a DJ. If it's his choice to pursue these goals, then why should he necessarily take a Chemistry GCSE? I put 'irrelevant' in quotes because in many instances GCSEs are not irrelevant - if you want to become a chemist, perhaps. On your point about 'fitting in' I previously mentioned that this phrase makes me nervous, as it has a certain 'authoritarian' ring about it. Being human means being a part of society - and ideally that means we get along with people of all sorts who are not like us - but why worry about 'fitting in'? What's more, many people are not especially sociable and don't especially fit in. So what? It's more likely that the stigma society attaches to not fitting in, not following the latest trends and not being part of the herd that might lead such people to be unhappy. 'Live and let live' would seem to be a more refreshing philosophy in this respect than 'You must learn to fit in.'

You wrote: "Have you ever spoken to home-educated children? were they happy in their isolation from mainstream? The only 2 people I can think of that were educated at home are Ruth Lawrence (remember her?) and the queen!! Not the most sociable people ever. So please tell me you have spoken to happy and fufilled adults who were educated away from their peers until they were 18!!" Yes, I have spoken to home-educated children and yes, they're happy not to go to school - 'Do you like your isolation from the mainstream' sounds to me a bit like the unanswerable question, 'Have you stopped beating your wife - yes or no?'...

Your sample of two home-educated people - Ruth Lawrence and the Queen - is unlikely to be representative of home-educated people. Rather like the 'But Hitler was a vegetarian...' argument, I could reply facetiously that, 'But Hitler, the Yorkshire Ripper and Big Brother's Nasty Nick went to school,' though I don't think it would advance the argument very much. Maybe another time I'll post a long list of famous people who were home-educated (compulsory state education isn't that old, after all), but I'm not sure how much that proves.

I happen to like 'sociable' people and see 'sociability' as a desirable characteristic, but I don't worry unduly about 'unsociable' people - 'anti-social' maybe, but plenty of children in school get called that as well.

Best wishes

I'd be really interested to hear about well known people who were educated at home until they were 18 in the last say 30 - 40 years.