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...

But Hazzy, how many boys of 14 or 15 really know whether they want to be a joiner or a chemist?. My career aspirations at that age bore no relation to what I wanted to do at 20. Isn't the point of education to teach people how to learn and how to get on with people so as to lay a base for making future decisions?

Hello Croppy,

I agree that we don't necessarily know what we want to do, but in my opinion home education is all about "how to learn and how to get on with people so as to lay a base for making future decisions". You say that you might want to do things which bore no relation to what you did at 16 - but that's true throughout life. I got eleven O-levels, five A-levels, a BA degree and an MA degree - none of which have any bearing on my current job.

In fact at school I remember being asked in the Fifth Year [now Year.. er.. something :-)] whether I wanted to do Maths With Statistics or Maths With Mechanics A/O level (everyone took the Maths O-level in the Fourth Year). I said I'd like to do Maths With Statistics and the teacher said, "But you're good at Chemistry and Physics - if you don't do Maths With Mechanics, you won't be able to do science A-levels." This struck me as daft at the time - I didn't know for sure whether I wanted to do sciences, arts (or both) at A-level. Getting me to decide at the age of 15 what I was going to do until A-level and presumably beyond was crazy.

I'd suggest that schools very often get pupils to specialise in this way - and then either you follow a path that you might later regret, or in later life you regard the subjects you took as pretty much irrelevant. It's the learning that's important, not the pieces of paper.

Best wishes

I just had to join in this discussion, which I find very interesting.

I am home educating my three children 7 year old boy, 11 year old girl and 13 year old boy. All of them have been to school and all of them decided it was time to try home education. This, I think, is the purpose of home education, to give the children the right to choose their own education. This is a valuable lesson for life in general, choices have consequences. Of course we as adults have more life experience and can, indeed should, sit down with said child and explain the pros and cons of any and all decision but ultimately no-one else has the right to decide what anyone should do.

My middle child has decided to try Secondary School in September. It has been totally her decision and she has said she doesn't want to take anyone else's word for it she wants to try it for herself. She rang up and was sent the application form for the school she wanted, she filled it in herself and presented it to me for signature which, after discussing the pros and cons, I did. She then sent it off. She has a place and is looking forward to it.

She knows I back her in 'her' decision all the way. She also knows that if she wishes to leave I will back her in that decision too.

My youngest son has no intention of ever going back to school, at the moment, he may change his mind.

I have to say I doubt that he will as he is very determined in everything he says and does. An example of this would be that at 6 he has decided exactly what he wants to do in adult life. He wants to own his own theatre and do all the lighting and sound himself. This has not altered one jot although I wouldn't mind if it did it is his life not mine and I am happy to see him getting on with it not practising as they do at school.

Hi Croppy,

I think you have hit the nail on the head but I think you have proved the other side's point.

You wrote:
how many boys of 14 or 15 really know whether they want to be a joiner or a chemist?. My career aspirations at that age bore no relation to what I wanted to do at 20. Isn't the point of education to teach people how to learn and how to get on with people so as to lay a base for making future decisions?

This is exactly what happens in a school. You are asked to choose your options in Year 9 these are the exams you will be taking later on and these are what 'mistakenly' your career is supposed to be based on.

Home Educated children can take exams one at a time, which generally means that they can concentrate on each one and get great marks. They can take them early or later depending on their readiness. They can miss out GCSE's and go straight for A Levels if they want to.

For that matter if they want to miss out all exams and take an access course for University they can. It has been done and reports from friends whose children are at University state that the University are delighted with Home Educated children as they are used to motivating themselves. Something schooled children find difficult as they have been spoonfed a lot, not all, information.

Claire Rayner once said (one a late night chat show) Children go to school for many reasons, education has very little to do with it.

As for learning to get on with people. Do you really think that only happens in school?

What about those huge groups of children (all of one age) who hang around on street corners acting aggressive and speaking in an atrocious way, swearing, putting each other and passersby down.

These children are school children, they do not know how to deal with people of different ages, generally. They are not able to communicate with adults and they have had to learn to be aggressive in order to win their place in the scheme of things at school.

I have seen these young people start work (I work in a supermarket part time). They do not last long their attitude stinks and they frequently come up against the Managers trying to up their place in the pecking order.

I have, of course, seen some marvellous young people come into the supermarket and work extremely hard, both schooled and home educated. You can, however, tell the difference even in these.

Claribel, I am a bit pushed for time right now, but I have read all these messages with interest and sometimes some concern.

With reference to the last paragraph of your most recent message, are you in fact saying that home educated children are generally 'better' that school educated children? This is how it reads to me, but perhaps I am being too literal? If this is what you believe, I think you are on dangerous ground.

I imagine far less research has been conducted on home-educated children than on school-educated children. There are far, far fewer of them for a start.

Also, surely academic or social 'failures' amongst home educated children are not going to be as evident or as recorded as those amongst school-educated children.

Home education may be a commendable personal choice for you, and good luck to you for embarking on this. But surely the sheer fact that you and your children are out of the current school system makes it difficult for you to pass general judgement on children who are products of that system.

In reply to Tigermoth... it may seem that home-edders see their children as 'better' than schooled children, maybe that's an automatic reaction of pride and defense of the choice we have made! I think the point made was that the people Claribel sees (and this is of course not going to be all schooled children everywhere, but then it's also not a bald generalisation) tend to have more trouble with social interaction if they've been in school. Not all of them. But there's a tendency.

It's down to experiences isn't it? A home-ed child has more opportunity to deal on an equal level (ie not in the authoritarian teacher-pupil relationship) with lots of different people of different ages, whether it's the different ages of the children at the home-ed group, the librarian and shop-people they meet (and mostly they meet them more often than children in school because they go with the parents, 'home-ed' doesn't mean staying at home all the time) and being used to being taken seriously, most of the time. They don't, on the whole, spend a great deal of their waking hours either with a group of people of about the same age, which they cannot leave without great risk of censure whether they like what they're doing or the people they're with or not. Their home-lives aren't governed by the need to timetable themselves to fit in with an externally imposed schedule, ie they can choose when to eat, when to go to the toilet, when to sleep and therefore they can know their own bodies and regulate themselves very well. They don't have this authoritarian relationship (although since there are all sorts of home-ed families, there are authoritarian parents in the mix) with an adult, who is going to transmit their stress levels about SATs and paperwork etc etc to a group of people who are already suffering from the lack of options they have. So they're less likely to behave in an anti-social way or have problems of this nature with authority figures. They're also more likely to know what they want and how they're going to get it.

The biggest research done on home-ed and educational outcomes was overwhelmingly in favour of home-ed, particularly for lower-income families. I don't have the link for the research atm but I'm sure someone will furnish you with it, if requested :-)

In the end I want a different kind of life for my children than that which is promoted by school. I want them to value their own happiness over another person's idea of success. It's not better, it's just different.

Just a bit more :-)

Tigermoth mentioned research. I have wondered in the past whether the 'happiness quotient' research done occasionally to decide which countries have the 'happiest' people have ever been done on school vs home-ed lines. But I think this isn't what you mean by 'better' grin

My children aren't better or worse than other children. They are themselves.

Trogette, yes as you say, your children aren't better or worse than other children, just different. Quite so.

So why be so negative about schools and school children? Is this the message you're giving your own children, and how do you think that will help their social interaction, when later on they encounter all those school-educated peers out here? Because that's going to happen sometime, at university, work etc.

I'm not criticising your decision to home-educate. I think it's a brave one and you have your child's interest at heart. I'm also sure that lots of home-educated children thrive from the individual attention they get from their parents.
The impression I get from reading messages from home-educators on this site is that you are an open minded, bright, positive and caring lot. But why do you have to knock a system of education that does work well for many children? Are you trying to recruit?

I disagree Claribel. Hazzy was suggesting that GCSE's are "irrelevant" for a boy wanting to be a joiner, saying that he would be much better off going out and getting practical experience in that field rather than getting a range of qualifications that may ultimately be of no use to him. Fine, if he ends up being happy with his choice of career as a joiner but if he subsequently decides that he would have rather have gone to university and be, say a journalist, he will have a lot of catching up to do to say the least. Of course we start selecting subjects at school at a relatively young age. After all, by 13 or so, most of us have a good idea as to whether we are more science or literary inclined. But most GSCE courses still involve a relatively broad range of subjects which of course leave open a wide range of careers.

I think your comments on "school" children hanging around on street corners and not being able to relate to people are quite frankly, best ignored. I think we all know that as far as this sort of behaviour is concerned, it is a happy and supportive home life that is most important.

I'm find this debate really interesting as we're just in the process of visiting schools and deciding which one to send our eldest to. I hadn't even thought of home ed as an option. Personally I had a great time at school and I'm pretty sure I'd like my sons to have the same experiences as I had - but it is food for thought. The whole business of choosing a school feels like such a huge responsibility as it is. We have a choice of some very different schools and this is scaring me enough. The thought of actually being responsible for educating my children at home is even scarier...I take my hat off to those who are doing it. I think you're very brave.

To those home ed'ers out there....Why did you decide on home ed? Hazzy's reasoning I can understand but did you others have a bad experience of schooling yourselves? Or were you even home educated yourselves? Or was it some other event that made you move to home education?

I'd love to hear from some one who's been on the receiving end of home education. How was it for you? Did you feel you missed out at all or gained extra valuable experience and skills that your 'school' educated peers didn't?

Hello Croppy,

You wrote: "Hazzy was suggesting that GCSE's are "irrelevant" for a boy wanting to be a joiner, saying that he would be much better off going out and getting practical experience in that field rather than getting a range of qualifications that may ultimately be of no use to him. Fine, if he ends up being happy with his choice of career as a joiner but if he subsequently decides that he would have rather have gone to university and be, say a journalist, he will have a lot of catching up to do to say the least."

But why can't he become a journalist anyway (for which you quite definitely do not have to go to university)? If he decides joinery isn't for him, where are his GCSEs going to get him? My advice, for what it's worth, would be to suggest he starts reading as many newspapers and magazines as he can, start writing and writing and writing, send some stories (no matter how trivial they might seem) to the local paper, contact the local paper to see if they do work experience, hang round the local paper when they say 'no', keep submitting his writing to whoever might want to publish it - and he'll become a journalist. That's how it usually works (except for the celebrity columnists on the national papers) - there's absolutely no need to spend three years at university and one year on a postgraduate journalism course. Or perhaps the local FE College might offer something suitable if he wants to brush up on his writing. None of these things requires passing a whole raft of GCSEs that might at some point in the future impress someone reading his CV. GCSEs have their place, but please let's not suggest that a happy or unhappy life depends on how many of them you get.

Best wishes

Hazzy, my sister is a journalist as are a number of my friends. It is one of the most competitive industries around and also one of the top 10 career choices for graduates. I don't know of a single newspaper (outside tiny local ones) who would consider a non-graduate for a trainee journalist role. Applicants are expected to demonstrate their interest in the field through their further study. Similarly, in the city, it is now the norm for banks to require an undergraduate degree as the minimum entry requirement for a non-clerical role.

I never suggested that a happy or unhappy life relates to how many GCSE's you have.

Surely the point is that with good GSCE's, a multitude of career options would be available to that boy, the same cannot be said without.

I have read these posts today.

Where has it been said that qualifications can not be gained simply due to home education.

If I may offer just one site to aid you in your quest for more understanding and give you a little insight into what home educating is REALLY all about rather than the same old red herrings that I have seen spouted here today.

On taking exams:-

www.westsuffolk.ac.uk/wsw/News/pressrelease/Assets/LKDL1.htm

I have many many more with user friendly explanations on how to go about gaining qualifications NOT using the school route should anyone wish to inform themselves properly

Hazzy, can I add my own personal experience to this discussion on entering journalism with minimal qualifications? I am not a journalist but I write for a living. I work with many others who also 'create'. Not all of them have GCSES. Not all went to college. But all underwent considerable training to get here. Like it or not having relevant qualifictions is the accepted way ( by that I mean accepted by our employers) to get a job here. Even for students on job training.

I had to knock on countless doors, hang around dozens of workplaces, network like mad and get lots of 'nos' before I got my first job in this field. It needed tons of confidence and support. A lot of this came from knowing I had completed a recognised course. That I had relevant qualifications on my CV. That fellow student friends were in a similar position.

OK you can bypass all this and not have that degree and post graduate training, but going back to your example, would a newspaper favour a persistant, keen but unqualified would-be writer over an equally persistant, keen and qualfied one? and in my experience there more than enough of the latter out there as it is.

I forgot to mention of course, after you have looked at that little article, you could have a wee look at what else is available simply via the internet, the library, the phone book (get writing some letters) your community, your neighbours, friends, family.

Enjoy a little home education yourself as you follow up on 'how could I gain qualifications' should I want to. See how easy it would be for you to get hold of the appropriate syllabus on a subject, being free to organise ahead of time the resources you will need, arm yourself with these, find an exam centre, head down and away you go. You'll be done in a fraction of the time, simply because you can opt to do fewer exams at a time, going at your own pace you are able to skip the easy stuff and spend more time on the harder stuff. The endless repitition when you already understand something is pointless, and avoided with home education.
This being the case, home educated children are two years in advance of their school aged peers. They are NOT hothoused, nor do we consider them themselves to be better than school children. (Whom we do get to meet, via the clubs and groups and activities in our community. Various local sports clubs, football clubs, cricket clubs swimming clubs, dance, drama, guides, scouts, church groups, gynastics, trampolining, at the shops, in the street, cafes restaurants and friends and neighbours, schooled or otherwise which they play with locally) They simply have the freedom to choose how to approach their own educational needs.

It occurs to me that the open University has been unquestionably one of the best resources for the gaining of higher qualifications for years. Those chosing to gain their qualifications using this medium have never had the kind of concerns thrown at them that we hear as home educators. Their social lives are not questioned. They are not asked if they feel they are missing something by not being with large numbers of people of their same age.

Why?

We live in an information rich society. Our children are open to practically unlimited use of a zillion resources in their search to discover the what? why? where? when? and how?

Whether a child has a structured approach or is autonomously educated the world is most definately their oyster. They gain far more than they lose.

Hello Tigermoth,

Tigermoth

Your asked: "Would a newspaper favour a persistent, keen but unqualified would-be writer over an equally persistent, keen and qualified one? and in my experience there more than enough of the latter out there as it is." Well, I've had some experience of this when recruiting editorial staff for the consumer magazine company I used to work for (publishing puzzle magazines) - I'd read applications from people with PhDs or MAs in Journalism or BAs in Media Studies or A-levels in English or GCSEs or no qualifications at all.

The two most important things I looked for were enthusiasm about the prospective job and experience - whether directly relevant or not. If someone wrote in and said that they had no editorial qualifications, but they loved puzzles, had tried their hand at composing them, loved words and had a firm grasp of good, clear written English, then they'd get an interview. If someone said, "Dear Sir, I have just graduated from X College with a degree in Y. Please consider me for the job. I enclose my CV," I filed their application in the WPB... Of course, some of the people recruited were graduates (and postgraduates) and some weren't, but their ability and enthusiasm to do the job was the primary consideration. Was I being unfair on those people who had spent a great deal of time obtaining qualifications?

Best wishes

message withdrawn

Claribel your 'home-ed kids are nicer than school ed ones' examples are frightening in their naivity. if this is the only influence your children have all day, then I wonder they wish to leave home at all.

Hazzy, what you say is interesting but I think I am looking less at the socialisation point and more at the 'you don't need qualifications' point. Hazzy whether you like it or not, to get into the 'professions' be it nurse, scientist, doctor, lawyer, teacher, politics (I don't know about journalism)etc you need qualifications and I'll tell you why. If an employer has to sit down and wade through 20 or more application forms and 19 have qualifications which 'show the applicant has knowledge in specific areas', versus a home-ed (or indeed a school-ed) who has no proof that they know anything. Then its obvious which one goes in the bin. You might not agree with that attitude Hazzy, and in utopia it would be different. But that's how the world works, and until someone comes up with any other way of proving an individuals knowdledge, other than exams - you are putting your children at a serious disadvantage.

How about this - Imagine going to your doctors and he says he knows his stuff, honest, but he didn't take any exams as his mum said he wouldn't need them! would you trust that person to treat you?

On the point of the OU, surely that simply reflects the age of its students? I.e. they have completed their schooling already with people of their own age.

As far as the overall debate is concerned, like many, I have very happy memories of my school days and made my closest life long friends there. I enjoyed the experience and certainly wouldn't have my present job without it (this reflects my experience of the rough and tuimble of school life rather than the actual academic qualifications). I can't imagine denying my children that experience.

What a great discussion. I sometimes feel rather anti-schools because I am not sure they develop the child's full potential. I think that our education system is geared towards supplying the workforce with employees. Therefore learning is geared toward passing exams and not learning because the world is an amazing place with so much to find out about. I also think that children should have much greater exposure to work. Now, before you all get hot and bothered I don't mean that they should be made to work but that they should get alot more opportunities to spend time in businesses / trades to get a better idea of what they want to do.
I do question whether herding kids into schools is the best way to educate people for life. However, I appreciate that it is all well and good for me to question that as a middle class, relatively high income parent. For some kids school gives them opportunities they could never hope to have if they were at home with their parents.
My own experience of school was that it was mind numbing. I went to a well respected church contributing state school and I was bored witless. It was cool to cultivate an air of total indifference to all that was being taught and very few of our teachers did much to capture our imagination. They weren't bad teachers, they were probably just worn down be our determined lack of interest.
I know I've said this before but I do feel that we ought to think outside the current situation. Our schools today have developed the way they have because of a historical requirement to keep kids off the streets while their parents were at work. This was subsequently hijacked by governments to ensure that they had a more amenable workforce.

Like Hmonty we are starting to think about what we might do for our son for primary education even though he's a toddler at the moment, and I've followed this discussion with great interest. As a product of the UK urban state system I read Bells' account with yearning, but then every Australian I ever met seems to have had a wonderful schooling.
We would consider home ed if our son did not get on well with school: my big worry is how they make the leap from being in a small nursery (in his case) to being one of 30. Bring class sizes down now, say I. More people might considering teaching as a profession if they only had to inspire and motivate 15 children at a time. School does teach you to rub along with people you would not choose to be with - I was bullied at my secondary school, not seriously, just enough to make me wish them all dead, the usual teenage campaigns of attrition and sniping. I came from quite a "precious" household though and I think having to weather this over seven years toughened me up a bit.
Home edders - don't you think there is a risk that you might be tempted to select extra activities on the basis that you all liked the other participants? IE, if you took your children along to football in the park and felt the other parents and children were loathesome - you'd just not go any more. Commitment to attending school where similar uncongenial types were present might encourage, oblige you all even, to think of strategies for coping with them. Because, sooner or later, won't you have to?

Two replies and one long question coming up!

Hazzy, regarding formal qualfications/keenness and experience when applying for jobs: As editor, you had some freedom to decide whom you wanted to employ. You could make the rules. Not so a humble job hunter. In my field of writing, keenness and persistance etc were very important to employers too, as my original remark states. When I decided on my chosed career, I had no relevant qualifications. I went to several prospective employers and asked them what I had to do to get a job. I offered to work for nothing, outlined my related experience and so on. They told me to got back to college, and get some relevant training! And no, I don't think you are ignoring time spent getting qualifications. In your particular field they may not be as important. But to some other employers they are. I supose evey HE job seeker had to research the ways into their chosen profession and go from there.

RobinW As I've already said, I think HE is a brave,personal decision. I'm sure that HE-ers have their children's interests at heart, and that many HE children thrive.That doesn't mean I don't have questions about HE - isn't that why this discussion board was started.

Now my question to HE-ers: Bugsy says 'For some kids, school gives them opportunities they could never hope to have if they were at home with their parents'. This really made me think. How would you manage HE if your family lived on benefits?

What happens if you can't easily afford a computer (no direct access to all those internet sites), books, paper and paint, sports club membership fees, scout uniforms, admission prices to museums and other educational attractions,petrol or bus fares to these places etc?

OK you can walk everywhere, but that limits you to your own locality. What if you live in a tiny village?

You could use free library resources to the full, but you're limited to library opening hours, queing and sharing resources. (Not saying schools are perfect providers of resources, by the way!) And if you are getting a qualification via HE, how do you get hold of expensinve, specialist text books? Not impossible, I'm sure, but difficult if you're on limited income.

At school, as well as all the free resources, you get free school meals, financial help towards uniform, concessionary rates for school trips etc

How do HE-ers of limited means provide access to to all the activites and resources listed in previous messages? Since HE means that one parent at least may have to give up their job to educate thier children, how do you manage?

Only one comment for now.

For the last five years my neices have been through the school system, and each one has had to pay for their own text books in order to get them through a subject, to the point of passing exams.
Each school year has been guinea pigged with so much that they could not even pass down the books to save their parents the expense, they had to buy different books, even on the same subjects.

HTH